Skip to main content

Full text of "Lenin Collected Works"

See other formats


WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! 



LENIN 

COLLECTED WORKS 

40 



THE RUSSIAN EDITION WAS PRINTED 
IN ACCORDANCE WITH A DECISION 
OF THE NINTH CONGRESS OF THE R.C.P.(B.) 
AND THE SECOND CONGRESS OF SOVIETS 
OF THE U.S.S.R. 



HHCTHTyT MAPKCH3MA— JIEHHHH3MA npn U,K KHCC 



B. M. JI E H M H 

COHHHEHHfl 



H 3 d a h u e nemeepmoe 



rOCY^APCTBEHHOE H3^ATEJIBCTBO 
IIOJIHTHHECKOH JIHTEPATYPBI 
M O C K B A 



V. I. L E N I N 



COLLECTED WORKS 



VOLUME 

40 

Notebooks on the Agrarian Question 
1900-1916 



PROGRESS PUBLISHERS 
MOSCOW 



TRANSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN 
BY YURI SDOBNIKOV 



From Marx to Mao 



M 

© Digital Reprints 
2013 

www. marx2mao . com 



First printing 1968 
Second printing 1974 



Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 



7 



CONTENTS 

Page 



Preface 13 

/ 

PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS 
ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 

PLAN OF "THE AGRARIAN QUESTION AND THE 'CRITICS 

OF MARX'" 29 

CONTENTS OF "THE AGRARIAN QUESTION AND THE 
'CRITICS OF MARX'" 38 

CONTENTS OF CHAPTERS V-IX OF "THE AGRARIAN 
QUESTION AND THE 'CRITICS OF MARX'" 39 

MARXIST VIEWS OF THE AGRARIAN QUESTION IN EUROPE 

AND RUSSIA. Outline of Lectures 40 

First Variant 40 

Second Variant 44 

THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF THE SOCIALIST-REVOLU- 
TIONARIES AND OF THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS. Outline 
of Lectures 53 

First Variant 53 

Second Variant 59 

Plans and Outlines of Concluding Speech 64 

Preliminary Plan 64 

Summary of Preliminary Plan 64 

Resume of Lecture 65 

Plan of Lecture Resume 67 

Resume of Lecture 67 

THE PEASANTRY AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 69 



8 



CONTENTS 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 
AND ANALYSIS OF MASSIVE AGRARIAN STATISTICS 
1900-1903 



CRITICAL REMARKS ON S. BULGAKOV'S BOOK, CAPITAL- 
ISM AND AGRICULTURE, VOLS. I AND II, PUBLISHED 
IN 1900 73 

PLAN OF OBJECTIONS TO BULGAKOV'S BOOK 87 

CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE WORKS OF S. BULGAKOV AND 

F. BENSING 88 

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF F. HERTZ'S BOOK, THE AGRARIAN 
QUESTIONS IN RELATION TO SOCIALISM 96 

Plans of Objections to F. Hertz's Book 104 

ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM 0. PRINGSHEIM'S ARTICLE, 
"AGRICULTURAL MANUFACTURE AND ELECTRIFIED AGRI- 
CULTURE" 107 

CRITICAL REMARKS ON E. DAVID'S ARTICLE, "THE 
PEASANT BARBARIANS" Ill 

ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM M. HECHT'S BOOK, THREE 
VILLAGES IN THE HARD OF BADEN 116 

ANALYSIS OF MATERIAL FROM H. AUHAGEN'S ARTICLE, 
"ON LARGE- AND SMALL-SCALE PRODUCTION IN AGRI- 
CULTURE" 126 

CRITICAL REMARKS ON K. KLAWKl'S ARTICLE, "THE COM- 
PETITIVE CAPACITY OF SMALL-SCALE PRODUCTION IN 
AGRICULTURE" 138 

BRASE AND OTHERS 160 

a. Analysis of Data from Brase's Article, "Study of 

the Influence of Farm Debt on Farming" 160 

b. Bibliographical Notes and Annotations 168 

CRITICAL REMARKS ON A. SOUCHON'S BOOK, PEASANT 
PROPERTY. 170 

CRITICAL REMARKS ON F. MAURICE'S BOOK, AGRICUL- 
TURE AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION. AGRICULTURAL AND 
AGRARIAN FRANCE 173 

REMARKS ON A. CHLAPOWO-CHLAPOWSKl'S BOOK, AGRI- 
CULTURE IN BELGIUM IN THE 19TH CENTURY 178 

REMARKS ON THE MATERIAL OF THE BADEN INQUIRY. ... 180 



CONTENTS 9 



REMARKS ON M. E. SEIGNOURET'S BOOK, ESSAYS ON 
SOCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 186 

FROM GERMAN AGRARIAN STATISTICS 189 

ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM THE BOOK, AGRICULTURAL 
STATISTICS OF FRANCE, GENERAL RESULTS OF THE 1892 
DECENNIAL INQUIRY 218 

SUMMARISED DATA ON FARMS IN GERMANY, FRANCE, 
BELGIUM, BRITAIN, U.S.A. AND DENMARK FROM THE 
CENSUSES OF THE 1880s AND 1890s 224 

FROM THE DUTCH AGRICULTURAL INQUIRY OF 1890 .... 226 

REMARKS ON E. STUMPFE'S WORKS 231 

A. An Analysis of Data from Stumpfe's Article, "On 
the Competitiveness of Small and Medium Land 
Holdings as Compared with Large Land Holdings" 231 

B. Remarks on E. Stumpfe's Book, Small 
Holdings and Grain Prices 240 

REMARKS ON G. FISCHER'S WORK, THE SOCIAL IMPOR- 
TANCE OF MACHINERY IN AGRICULTURE 248 

NOTE ON P. TUROT'S BOOK, AGRICULTURAL INQUIRY 
1866-1870 257 

REMARKS ON H. BAUDRILLART' S BOOK, THE AGRICUL- 
TURAL POPULATION OF FRANCE. PART III. THE POPU- 
LATION OF THE SOUTHr^. . . . . . . 258 

REMARKS ON E. COULET'S BOOK, THE SYNDICALIST AND 
CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT IN FRENCH AGRICULTURE. 
THE AGRICULTURAL FEDERATION 260 

REMARKS ON G. ROUANET'S ARTICLE, "ON THE DANGER 

AND THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURAL SYNDICATES" .... 261 

ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM NOSSIG'S BOOK, REVISION OF 
SOCIALISM. VOL. II. THE CONTEMPORARY AGRARIAN 
QUESTION 263 

CRITICAL REMARKS ON E. DAVID'S BOOK, SOCIALISM AND 
AGRICULTURE 265 

A 265 

B 281 

EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK, HAND AND MACHINE LABOR 282 

ANALYSIS OF L. HUSCHKE'S DATA (ON SMALL-SCALE 
AGRICULTURE) 287 



10 



CONTENTS 



III 

MATERIAL FOR A STUDY OF THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 
OF EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES 
1910-1916 

GERMAN AGRARIAN STATISTICS (1907) 297 

PLAN FOR PROCESSING THE DATA OF THE GERMAN 
AGRICULTURAL CENSUS OF JUNE 12, 1907 372 

DANISH STATISTICS 376 

AUSTRIAN AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 383 

REMARKS ON SCHMELZLE'S ARTICLE, "DISTRIBUTION 
OF RURAL LAND HOLDINGS, ITS INFLUENCE ON THE 
PRODUCTIVITY AND DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE" .... 397 

REMARKS ON E. LAUR'S BOOK, STATISTICAL NOTES ON 
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SWISS AGRICULTURE OVER THE 
LAST 25 YEARS 402 

REMARKS ON E. JORDl'S BOOK, THE ELECTRIC MOTOR IN 
AGRICULTURE 406 

CAPITALISM AND AGRICULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES 

OF AMERICA 408 

Outline of Introduction. American Agricultural 

Censuses 408 

Variants of Plan 408 

Variants of Title 411 

Extracts from Different Variants 412 

Variants of Contents 414 

REMARKS ON AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS .... 416 

AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 421 

Notes 489 

Index of Sources 519 

Name Index 539 



CONTENTS 11 
ILLUSTRATIONS 

Lenin's manuscript, Contents of "The Agrarian Question 

and the 'Critics of Marx'". Earlier than February 1906.. . . 38-39 

Lenin's manuscript, "The Peasantry and Social-Democracy" 

Not earlier than September 1904 68-69 

Pages 8 and 9 of Lenin's manuscript, "German Agrarian 
Statistics (1907)". September 1910-1913 298-299 

Page 12 of Lenin's manuscript, "American Agricultural 
Statistics". Between May 5 (18), 1914 and December 29, 1915 
(January 11, 1916) 426-427 



13 



PREFACE 

The present volume contains Lenin's Notebooks on the 
Agrarian Question, which is preparatory material for his 
works analysing capitalist agriculture in Western Europe, 
Russia and the United States, and criticising bourgeois 
and petty-bourgeois theories, and reformism and revisionism 
in the agrarian question. 

The material in this volume relates to the period from 
1900 to 1916. In the new conditions, with capitalism at 
its highest and final stage — the stage of imperialism — Lenin 
worked out and substantiated the agrarian programme and 
agrarian policy of the revolutionary proletarian party, and 
took Marxist theory on the agrarian question a step forward 
in its view of classes and the class struggle in the country- 
side, the alliance of the working class and the peasantry 
under the leadership of the proletariat, and their joint 
struggle against the landowners and capitalists, for demo- 
cracy and socialism. The success of the revolution depended 
on whom the peasantry would follow, for in many European 
countries it constituted the majority or a sizable section 
of the population. In order to win over the peasantry, as 
an ally of the proletariat in the coming revolution, it was 
necessary to expose the hostile parties which claimed leader- 
ship of the peasantry, and their ideologists. 

In the new epoch, these questions became especially 
pressing and acquired international significance. That is 
why bourgeois economists, reformists and revisionists 
fiercely attacked Marxism. It was subjected to crit- 
icism by bourgeois apologists, the ideologists of petty- 
bourgeois parties, and opportunists among the Social- 
Democrats. They all rejected Marx's theory of ground-rent, 



14 



PREFACE 



and the law of concentration of production in agriculture, 
and denied the advantages of large- over small-scale produc- 
tion; they insisted that agriculture developed according 
to special laws, and was subject to the inexorable "law of 
diminishing returns". They said it was not human labour 
and the implements of labour, but the elemental forces of 
nature that were decisive in agriculture. These "critics 
of Marx" juggled with the facts and statistics, in an effort 
to show that the small-scale peasant economy was "stable" 
and had advantages over large-scale capitalist production. 

Lenin's great historical service in working out the agra- 
rian question lies in the fact that he defended Marx's revolu- 
tionary teaching against the attacks of his "critics", and 
further developed it in application to the new historical 
conditions and in connection with the working out of the pro- 
gramme, strategy and tactics of the revolutionary proletarian 
party of the new type; he proved the possibility, and the 
necessity, of an alliance between the working class and the 
peasantry under the leadership of the proletariat at the 
various stages of the revolution, and showed the conditions 
in which this could be realised. 

It was of tremendous importance to produce a theoretical 
elaboration of the agrarian question so as to determine 
the correct relations between the working class and the 
various groups of peasantry as the revolutionary struggle 
went forward. Under capitalism, the peasantry breaks up into 
different class groups, with differing and antithetical inter- 
ests; the "erosion" of the middle peasantry yields a numer- 
ically small but economically powerful rich peasant (kulak) 
top section at one pole, and a mass of poor peasants, rural 
proletarians and semi-proletarians, at the other. Lenin 
revealed the dual nature of the peasant as a petty commo- 
dity producer — the dual nature of his economic and 
political interests: the basic interests of the toiler suffering 
from exploitation by the landowner and the kulak, which 
makes him look to the proletariat for support, and the 
interests of the owner, which determine his gravitation 
towards the bourgeoisie, his political instability and vacilla- 
tion between it and the working class. Lenin emphasised 
the need for an alliance between the working class and the 
peasantry, with the leading role belonging to the proletariat, 



PREFACE 



15 



as a prerequisite for winning the dictatorship of the prole- 
tariat and building socialism through a joint effort by the 
workers and peasants. 

* * 
* 

The first part of the volume contains the plans and out- 
lines of Lenin's writings on the agrarian question, the main 
being the preparatory materials for "The Agrarian Question 
and the 'Critics of Marx'" (see present edition, Vols. 5 
and 13). The variants of the plan for this work give a good 
idea of how Lenin mapped out the main line and the con- 
crete points for his critique of reformist bourgeois theories 
and of revisionism. Lenin defined a programme for processing 
the relevant reliable material from numerous sources to 
refute the arguments of the "critics of Marx" concerning 
the dubious "law of diminishing returns" and the Malthu- 
sian explanation of the root causes of the working man's 
plight, and to ward off their attacks on the Marxist theory 
of ground-rent, etc. 

In preparing "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of 
Marx'" and his lectures on the agrarian question, Lenin 
made a thorough study of the most important sources, and 
utilised European agrarian statistics to give Marxist 
agrarian theory a sound basis. He verified, analysed and 
summed up a mass of statistical data, and drew up tables 
giving an insight into the deep-going causes, nature and 
social significance of economic processes. Lenin's analysis 
of agrarian statistics shows their tremendous importance 
as a tool in cognising economic laws, exposing the contra- 
dictions of capitalism, and subjecting it and its apologists 
to scientific criticism. 

The writings in the first part of the volume show the 
direct connection between Lenin's theoretical inquiry, 
his elaboration of Marxist agrarian theory and the practical 
revolutionary struggle of the working class. 

The preparatory materials for his lectures on the "Marxist 
Views of the Agrarian Question in Europe and Russia", 
and on "The Agrarian Programme of the Socialist-Revolu- 
tionaries and of the Social-Democrats", both included in 
this volume, are a reflection of an important stage of Lenin's 
struggle against the petty-bourgeois party of Socialist- 



16 



PREFACE 



Revolutionaries and opportunists within the Social-Demo- 
cratic movement, in working out and substantiating a truly 
revolutionary agrarian programme and tactics for the 
Marxist working-class party in Russia. 

Russia was then on the threshold of her bourgeois-demo- 
cratic revolution. In Russia, capitalism had grown into 
imperialism, while considerable survivals of serfdom still 
remained in the country's economy and the political system 
as a whole. The landed estates were the main relicts of pre- 
capitalist relations in the economy; the peasant allotment 
land tenure, adapted to the landowners' corvee system, 
was also shackled with relicts of serfdom. These tended 
to slow down the development of the productive forces 
both in Russia's industry and agriculture, widen the tech- 
nical and economic gap separating her from the leading 
capitalist countries of the West, and create the conditions 
for indentured forms of exploitation of the working class 
and the peasantry. That is why the agrarian question was 
basic to the bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia and 
determined its specific features. 

Lenin laid special emphasis on the importance of theory 
in working out the Party programme: "In order to make 
a comparison of the programmes and to assess them, it is nec- 
essary to examine the principles, the theory, from which the 
programme flows" (see p. 53). Lenin's theoretical analysis 
of the economic nature of the peasant economy enabled 
him to determine correctly the community or the distinction 
of class interests between the proletariat and the various 
sections of the peasantry in the bourgeois-democratic revo- 
lution, and to map out the Party's policy towards the 
peasantry. The main task of the agrarian programme during 
the bourgeois-democratic revolution was to formulate the 
demands that would secure the peasantry as the proletariat's 
ally in the struggle against tsarism and the landowners. "The 
meaning of our agrarian programme: the Russian prole- 
tariat (including the rural) must support the peasantry 
in the struggle against serfdom" (see p. 62). Lenin subjected 
the agrarian programme of the Socialist-Revolutionaries 
to withering criticism and proved that their theoretical 
unscrupulousness and eclecticism had induced them to say 
nothing of the historical task of the period — destruction of the 



PREFACE 



17 



relicts of serfdom — to deny the stratification of the peasantry 
along class lines, and the class struggle in the countryside, 
to invent all manner of projects for "socialisation of land", 
"equalisation", etc. 

While Lenin aimed his criticism against the Socialist- 
Revolutionaries, he also exposed the anti-Marxist stand 
on the agrarian issue in Russia and the peasantry taken 
by P. P. Maslov, A. S. Martynov, D. B. Ryazanov and 
other Mensheviks-to-be, who denied that the peasantry 
had a revolutionary role to play, and who regarded it as 
a solid reactionary mass. By contrast, Lenin emphasised 
the dual nature of Narodism: the democratic side, inasmuch 
as they waged a struggle against the relicts of serfdom, 
and the Utopian and reactionary side, expressive of the 
urge on the part of the petty bourgeois to perpetuate his 
small farm. In this context, Lenin pointed to the need to 
take account of the two sides of Narodism in evaluating 
its historical importance. 

The first part ends with two plans for "The Peasantry 
and Social-Democracy" (see pp. 69-70). These plans warrant 
the assumption that Lenin had the intention of writing 
a special work on the subject to sum up his studies of agrar- 
ian relations and the experience gained by socialist parties 
abroad in working out agrarian programmes, and to sub- 
stantiate the R.S.D.L.P.'s policy towards the peasantry. 
With his usual insight, he points to the "practical impor- 
tance of the agrarian question in the possibly near future" 
(see p. 70), and notes the specific nature of class relations 
in the Russian countryside, and the need for the rural 
proletariat to fight on two flanks: against the landowners 
and the relicts of serfdom, and against the bourgeoisie. 
Lenin marked out the guiding principles which were to 
serve the Marxist party as a beacon in the intricate condi- 
tions of the class struggle in the countryside: "Together 
with the peasant bourgeoisie against the landowners. To- 
gether with the urban proletariat against the peasant 
bourgeoisie" (see p. 69). 

The writings in the second part of the present volume 
are a reflection of his critical processing of a great mass 
of facts and statistical data from bourgeois and petty- 
bourgeois agrarian works and official sources. Of special 



18 



PREFACE 



interest in this part is the material on the study and proc- 
essing of the results of special statistical inquiries into 
the state of agriculture, especially the peasant economy, 
in a number of European countries. 

Lenin gives a model of scientific analysis of agrarian 
relations, application of the Marxist method in processing 
social and economic statistics, and critical use of bourgeois 
sources and writings. Lenin adduces reliable data to refute 
the assertions of bourgeois economists, reformists and revi- 
sionists, and shows that in agriculture as well large-scale 
capitalist production is more effective than small-scale 
production and tends inevitably to supplant it, that small 
peasant farms are being expropriated by big capital, and 
that the toiling peasantry is being ruined and proletarised. 
That is the general law governing the development of agri- 
culture on capitalist lines, although it may differ in form 
from country to country. 

In his critical remarks on the works of S. Bulgakov, 
F. Hertz, M. Hecht, E. David, and K. Klawki, Lenin refutes 
the bourgeois reformist theories which extol small farming 
and assert that it is "superior" to large-scale production. 
He exposes the tricks used by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois 
economists to minimise the earnings of the big farms and 
exaggerate those of the small. Lenin counters the false eulo- 
gies to the "viability" of the small farms — due allegedly 
to the small farmer's industry, thrift and hardiness, by 
showing that small-scale production in agriculture is sus- 
tained by the back-breaking toil and poor nutrition of the 
small farmer, the dissipation of his vital forces, the deterio- 
ration of his livestock, and the waste of the soil's productive 
forces. 

Lenin has some particularly sharp words for the reformists 
and revisionists who "fool others by styling themselves 
socialists", and put more into prettifying capitalist reality 
than the bourgeois apologists themselves. Lenin makes 
a detailed analysis of E. David's Socialism and Agriculture — 
the main revisionist work on the agrarian question — and 
shows it to be a collection of bourgeois falsehood and bias 
wrapped up in "socialist" terminology. 

At the same time, Lenin takes pains to sift and examine 
any genuine scientific data and correct observations and 



PREFACE 



19 



conclusions which he finds in bourgeois sources and writings. 
He makes the following extract from 0. Pringsheim's 
article: "Modern large-scale agricultural production should 
be compared with the manufacture (in the Marxian sense)" 
(see p. 108), and repeatedly makes such comparisons in his 
works (see present edition, Vol. 5, p. 141 and Vol. 22, 
p. 99). On F. Maurice's book, Agriculture and the Social 
Question. Agricultural and Agrarian France, Lenin makes 
this remark: "The author has the wildest ideas of the most 
primitive anarchism. There are some interesting factual 
remarks" (see p. 173). 

Lenin devotes special attention to an analysis of statis- 
tics on the agrarian system in Denmark, which the apolo- 
gists of capitalism liked to present as the "ideal" country 
of small-scale peasant production. He exposes the trickery 
of bourgeois economists and revisionists and demonstrates 
the capitalist nature of the country's agrarian system. The 
basic fact which bourgeois political economists and revision- 
ists try to hush up is that the bulk of the land and the 
livestock in Denmark is in the hands of landowners running 
farms on capitalist lines (see p. 225 and pp. 376-82). "The 
basis of Danish agriculture is large-scale and medium 
capitalist farming. All the talk about a 'peasant country' 
and 'small-scale farming' is sheer bourgeois apologetics, 
a distortion of the facts by various titled and untitled ideolo- 
gists of capital" (see present edition, Vol. 13, p. 196). Lenin 
castigates the "socialists" who try to obscure the fact that 
production is being concentrated and that the petty producer 
is being ousted by the big producer, and the fact that the 
prosperity of capitalist agriculture in Denmark is based 
on the massive proletarisation of the rural population. 

The third part of the volume contains material for a study 
of the capitalist agriculture of Europe and the United 
States from 1910 to 1916, including the material relating 
to Lenin's New Data on the Laws Governing the Devel- 
opment of Capitalism in Agriculture. Part One. Capitalism 
and Agriculture in the United States of America. 

In this work, Lenin stresses that the United States, 
"a leading country of modern capitalism", was of especial 
interest for the study of the social and economic structure 
of agriculture, and of the forms and laws of its development 



20 



PREFACE 



in modern capitalist conditions. "In America, agricultural 
capitalism is more clear-cut, the division of labour is more 
crystallised; there are fewer bonds with the Middle Ages, 
with the soil-bound labourer; ground-rent is not so burden- 
some; there is less intermixing of commercial agriculture 
and subsistence farming" (see p. 420). The important thing 
is that the United States is unrivalled in the vastness of 
territory and diversity of relationships, showing the greatest 
spectrum of shades and forms of capitalist agriculture. 

Bourgeois economists, reformists and revisionists distort 
the facts in an effort to prove that the U.S. farm economy 
is a model of the "non-capitalist evolution" of farming, where 
the "small family farm" is allegedly supplanting large- 
scale production, where most farms are "family-labour 
farms", etc. N. Himmer, who gave his views in an article 
on the results of the U.S. Census of 1910, epitomises those 
who believe that agriculture in capitalist society develops 
along non-capitalist lines. Lenin makes this note: "Himmer 
as a collection of bourgeois views. In this respect, 
his short article is worth volumes" (see p. 408). The opponents 
of Marxism based their conclusions on facts and figures, 
major and minor, which were isolated from "the general 
context of politico-economic relations". On the strength 
of massive data provided by the U.S. censuses, Lenin gives 
"a complete picture of capitalism in American agriculture" 
(present edition, Vol. 22, p. 18). Lenin notes that through 
their agricultural censuses, bourgeois statisticians collect 
"an immense wealth of complete information on each enter- 
prise as a unit" but because of incorrect tabulation and 
grouping it is reduced in value and spoiled; the net result 
is meaningless columns of figures, a kind of statistical 
"game of digits". 

Lenin goes on to work the massive data of agricultural 
statistics into tables on scientific principles for grouping 
farms. The summary table compiled by Lenin (pp. 440-41) 
is a remarkable example of the use of socio-economic statis- 
tics as an instrument of social cognition. He brings out 
the contradictions and trends in the capitalist development 
of U.S. agriculture through a three-way grouping of farms: 
by income, that is, the value of the product, by acreage, 
and by specialisation (principal source of income). 



PREFACE 



21 



Lenin's analysis of the great volume of facts and massive 
agrarian statistics proves that U.S. agriculture is developing 
the capitalist way. Evidence of this is the general increase 
in the employment of hired labour, the growth in the num- 
ber of wage workers, the decline in the number of independent 
farm owners, the erosion of the middle groups and the consol- 
idation of the groups at both ends of the farm spectrum, 
and the growth of big capitalist farms and the displacement 
of the small. Lenin says that capitalism in U.S. agriculture 
tends to grow both through the faster development of the 
large-acreage farms in extensive areas, and through the 
establishment of farms with much larger operations on 
smaller tracts in the intensive areas. There is growing con- 
centration of production in agriculture, and the expropriation 
and displacement of small farmers, which means a decline 
in the proportion of owners. 

In his book, Lenin shows the plight of the small and 
tenant farmers, especially Negroes, who are most ruthlessly 
oppressed. "For the 'emancipated' Negroes, the American 
South is a kind of prison where they are hemmed in, isolated 
and deprived of fresh air" (present edition, Vol. 22, p. 27). 
Lenin notes the remarkable similarity between the economic 
status of the Negroes in America and that of the one-time 
serfs in the heart of agricultural Russia. 

An indicator of the ruin of small farmers in the United 
States is the growth in the number of mortgaged farms, 
which "means that the actual control over them is transferred 
to the capitalists". Most farmers who fall into the clutches 
of finance capital are further impoverished. "Those who 
control the banks, directly control one-third of America's 
farms, and indirectly dominate the lot" (ibid., pp. 92, 100). 

Lenin's study of the general laws governing the capitalist 
development of agriculture and the forms they assumed 
in the various countries shed a strong light on the whole 
process of displacement of small-scale by large-scale pro- 
duction. This complex and painful process involves not 
only the direct expropriation of toiling peasants and farmers 
by big capital, but also the "ruin of the small farmers and 
a worsening of conditions on their farms that may go on 
for years and decades" (Vol. 22, p. 70), a process which 
may assume a variety of forms, such as the small farmer's 



22 



PREFACE 



overwork or malnutrition, heavy debt, worse feed and 
poorer care of livestock, poorer husbandry, technical stag- 
nation, etc. 

Lenin analysed the capitalist agriculture of Europe 
and the United States decades ago. Since then, considerable 
changes have taken place in the agriculture of the capitalist 
countries. However, the objective laws governing capitalist 
development are inexorable. The development of capitalist 
agriculture fully bears out the Marxist-Leninist agrarian 
theory, and its characteristic of classes and the class struggle 
in the countryside. The Programme of the Communist 
Party of the Soviet Union emphasises that the agriculture 
of the capitalist countries is characterised by a further 
deepening of the contradictions inherent in the bourgeois 
system, namely, the growing concentration of production, 
and ever greater expropriation of small farmers and peasants. 
The monopolies have occupied dominant positions in agri- 
culture as well. Millions of farmers and peasants are being 
ruined and driven off the soil. 

In the decades since Lenin made his analysis, there have 
been major changes in the technical equipment of agricul- 
tural production. But, as in the time of Marx and Lenin, 
the machine not only raises the productivity of human labour 
but also leads to a further aggravation of the contradictions 
in capitalist agriculture. 

The mechanisation of production on the large capitalist 
farms is accompanied by intensification of labour, worsening 
of working conditions, displacement of hired labour and 
growing unemployment. At the same time, there is increasing 
ruin of small peasants and farmers, who are unable to buy 
and make rational use of modern machinery, and who are 
saddled with debts and taxes; the small and middle farmers 
who are supplanted by the large farms, become tenants, or 
wage workers; and the dispossessed tenant farmers are 
driven off the land. This is borne out by the massive statis- 
tics furnished by agricultural censuses in the United States, 
Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and 
other capitalist countries. 

But in the teeth of these facts present-day bourgeois 
economists, reformists and revisionists of every stripe 
keep coming up with the theories long since refuted by 



PREFACE 



23 



Marxism-Leninism and upset by practice itself — asserting 
that under capitalism the small farm is "stable", that it 
offers "advantages" over the large farm, and that under 
capitalism the toiling peasant can enjoy a life of prosperity. 

Modern reformists and revisionists try to revive the old 
theories of the "non-capitalist evolution of agriculture 
through the co-operatives. However, the marketing co-oper- 
atives extolled by the bourgeoisie and their 'socialist' 
servitors fail to save the small farmers from privation and 
ruin. Modern reality fully bears out Lenin's analysis of 
co-operatives under capitalism. Lenin adduced concrete 
facts on associations for the marketing of dairy produce in 
a number of capitalist countries to show that these consist 
mainly of large (capitalist) farms, and that very few small 
farmers take part in them (see pp. 207, 209-10). In the 
capitalist countries today, co-operative societies, which 
are under the control of banks and monopolies, are also 
used mainly by capitalist farmers and not by the small 
farmers. 

Lenin's critique of bourgeois reformist and revisionist 
views on the agrarian question is just as important today 
as a brilliant example of the Party approach in science, 
and of irreconcilable struggle against a hostile ideology, 
bourgeois apologetics, and modern reformism and revision- 
ism. With capitalism plunged in a general crisis, and 
class contradictions becoming more acute, the bourgeoisie 
and its ideologists have been trying very hard to win over 
the peasantry, by resorting to social demagogy, propounding 
reformist ideas of harmonised class interests, and promising 
the small farmer better conditions under capitalism. Lenin s 
guiding statements on the agrarian question teach the 
Communist and Workers' Parties of the capitalist and 
colonial countries to take correct decisions on the working- 
class attitude towards the peasantry as an ally in the revo- 
lutionary struggle against capitalism and colonialism, for 
democracy and socialism. 

Lenin stressed that, in contrast to those bourgeois pundits 
who sow illusions among the small peasants about the 
possibility of achieving prosperity under capitalism, the 
Marxist evaluation of the true position of the peasantry in 
the capitalist countries "inevitably leads to the recognition 



24 



PREFACE 



of the small peasantry's blind alley and hopeless position 
(hopeless, outside the revolutionary struggle of the prole- 
tariat against the entire capitalist system)" (present edition, 
Vol. 5, p. 190). 

The historic example of the Soviet Union and other social- 
ist countries has shown the peasants of the world the advan- 
tages of the socialist way of farming; they are coming to 
realise that only the establishment of truly popular power 
and producers' co-operatives can rid the peasants of poverty 
and exploitation, and assure them of a life of prosperity and 
culture. The experience of the U.S.S.R. and the People's 
Democracies has toppled the theories spread by the servants 
of the bourgeoisie which say that the peasantry is basically 
hostile to socialism. There is now practical proof of the 
correctness of the Marxist-Leninist proposition that the 
peasant economy must and can be remodelled on socialist 
lines, and that the toiling peasants can be successfully 
involved in the construction of socialism and communism. 

* * 
* 

The bulk of the material contained in the present volume 
was first published from 1932 to 1938, in Lenin Miscellanies 
XIX, XXXI and XXXII. Seven writings were first publish- 
ed in the Fourth Russian edition, among them: remarks 
on M. E. Seignouret's book, Essays on Social and Agricul- 
tural Economics; a manuscript containing an analysis of data 
from the Agricultural Statistics of France; remarks on 
G. Fischer's The Social Importance of Machinery in Agri- 
culture; a manuscript containing extracts from Hand and 
Machine Labor; and remarks on E. Jordi's Electric Motor 
in Agriculture. 

The publishers have retained Lenin's arrangement of the 
material, his marks in the margin and underlinings in the 
text. The underlinings are indicated by type variations: 
a single underlining by italics, a double underlining by 
spaced italics, three lines by heavy Roman type, 
and four lines by spaced heavy Roman type. 
A wavy underlining is indicated by heavy italics, if dou- 
ble — by spaced heavy italics. 



PREFACE 



25 



In the Fourth Russian edition the entire text of this 
volume was verified once again with Lenin's manuscripts 
and sources. 

All statistical data were checked again, but no correc- 
tions were made where the totals or percentages do not tally, 
because they are the result of Lenin's rounding off the figures 
from the sources. 

The present volume contains footnote references to 
Lenin's "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'" 
and New Data on the Laws Governing the Development 
of Capitalism in Agriculture. This has been done to show 
the connection between the preparatory material and the 
finished works, and to give an idea of how Lenin made use 
of his notes. 

Institute of Marxism-Leninism 
under the C.P.S.U. Central 
Committee 



I 

PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS 
ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 



29 



PLAN OF 
"THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 
AND THE 'CRITICS OF MARX'" 1 

FIRST VARIANT 

Perhaps the following division: 

A. Some of Bulgakov's general propositions and "theories" 

B. Factual data against the critics 
M. Hecht* 

Baden Inquiry (connect with Winzer)** 
"Solid peasantry" 
K. Klawki*** 

The Condition of the Peasants 2 

(Hertz****, 15) Baudrillart 3 

French statistics. (Souchon and Maurice)***** 

German statistics****** (connect with co-operatives) 

Belgium (Vandervelde, Chlapowski*******?). 

C. Class struggle o r co-operation? 
Distortion of Engels. 4 

Overall data on employers and wage workers. Capi- 
talist system. 

Bottger. 5 [Bulgakov's greater consistency] 

D. Russian agrarian programme in No. 3 of Iskra 6 . 



* See pp. 116-25.— Ed. 
**Wine grower. See pp. 180-85.— Ed. 

*** See pp. 138-59.— Ed. 

**** See pp. 96-106.— Ed. 

***** See pp. 170-77.— Ed. 

****** See pp. 189-217.— Ed. 

******* See pp. 178-79. -Ed. 



30 



V. I. LENIN 



SECOND VARIANT 



A. Bulgakov on the law of diminishing returns 
(cf. Maslov, who is not quite right 7 ). 

A. Bulgakov on big and small farms. 

((To B?))Bulgakov on co-operation and individualism in 
agriculture. 

B. Baden data (in connection with Hecht). 
B. Baudrillart.... 

B. The Condition of the Peasants.... 
C) ... Bottger.... 

C) r Distortion of Engels and Marx. 

("The Peasant Question") 
B. Moritz Hecht. 

B) Co-operatives. (Cf. German statistics on dairy 
- farms) 

C) Overall data on rural labourers and rural employ- 
ers. 

D) Russian agrarian programme in No. 3 of Iskra. 
B. I K. Klawki. 

B. French data on holders and proletariat in agricul- 
ture. 

(To A?) Electric power in agriculture 



Pringsheim* 

Mack 8 

Kautsky 9 



THIRD VARIANT 

CRITICS IN THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 

A) 1. Introduction. Breach in orthodox Marxism 
(Chernov No. 4, 127 10 ). 
I 2. General methods of the critics' "theory" . Bulgakov: 
law of diminishing returns (cf. Maslov) 

3. Bulgakov's own data in refutation of it. 

4. Theory of rent (cf. Maslov). 

5. Malthusianism: cf. Ireland. 11 



See pp. 107-10.— Ed. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 31 



II 6. Hertz (+ Bulgakov). Agricultural machinery, 
large- and small-scale production (Bulgakov 
J* Hertz: £*). Con— Bulgakov I, 240, II, 115, 133. 

7. Hertz. "Definition of capitalism" (and Chernov) 

8. — mortgages (and Chernov). Cf. Bulgakov on 

savings banks II, 375. 

9. — Engels on America 12 (Idem Chernov). 

Bulgakov II, 433 (cf. I, 49) 
Electric power in agriculture (Pringsheim, Mack, 
K. Kautsky). 

Ill 10. Chernov. Kautsky is annihilated (A — 6 Chernov 13 ). 
Ibidem Kautsky on usury, Kautsky on the dis- 
tinguishing characteristics of the proletariat. 
Voroshilov. 

11. Voroshilov about N. — on and others. (A — 1 

Chernov 13 ) 

12. " "form and content" of capitalism 
B)) IV 1. M. Hecht (Blondel, 14 Hertz, David, Chernov). 

2. K. Klawki (against Auhagen) (Bulgakov) 
V 3. The Condition of the Peasants (Quotations from 
Hertz and Bulgakov) 15 

4. Baden Inquiry. 

5. Conclusions on "solid peasantry" (Bul- 
gakov s.*** Hertz— p. 6 N.B. Hertz §.**** 
Chernov on petty-bourgeois peasantry. Chernov 
No. 7, 163; No. 10, 240). 

VI 6. Baudrillart (Hertz p. 15 et al., Bulgakov II, 282) 

7. Souchon and Maurice. 
VII 8. French statistics. (Property and farm operations, 
cf. Hertz: "no proletarisation at all" p. 59. Em- 
ployers and labourers establishments with hired 
labour) 

VIII 9. German statistics. Latifundia. (Cf. Hertz and 
Bulgakov). 

9 bis. German statistics....***** (Cf. Bulgakov 
II, 106). 



*See p. 87.— Ed. 
**See p. 104— Ed. 
*** See p. 81.— Ed. 
****See p. 104.— Ed. 
***** Several words illegible.— Ed. 



32 



V. I. LENIN 



10. German statistics. Industrialisation of rural indus- 
try (Bulgakov and Hertz, p. 88). 

11. German statistics. Co-operatives. 
Cf. Baden data on the Winzers. 

IX 12. Belgium. (Vandervelde, Chlapowski). 

C) ) X 1. Overall data on employers and labourers. 

(Capitalist system) 

2. Nonsense about "peasantry". 

3. Distortion of Engels ("The Peasant Question"). 
(Hertz, Chernov.) 

4. Bulgakov (more consistent). 

5. Class struggle o r co-operation. 

6. Bottger. 

D) XI Russian agrarian programme and No. 3 of Iskra. 

Iskra's approach to the question. 
Objections of 2a3b 16 
The pros and cons. 



FOURTH VARIANT 

CRITICS IN THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 

I 

1. Introduction. Agrarian question — "breach" (first one) 
in orthodox Marxism. (Chernov No. 4, 127; No. 8,2 0 4). 

2. General theoretical propositions and reasoning of critics 
(Bulgakov, Hertz and Chernov). Bulgakov: law of dimin- 
ishing returns (cf. Maslov). Bulgakov's phrases: I, 2, 
13, 1 7, 18, 20, 21 (29-30 especially), 34, 35, 64 and 
many others. (Cf. K. Kautsky versus Brentano. No 
wonder Bulgakov is delighted with Brentano. I, 116.) 

3. Refutation of this law with Bulgakov's own data: in 
Britain: I, 242, 260; in Germany: II, 132-33. In France 
II, 213. 

4. Theory of rent. (Cf. Maslov.) Bulgakov I, 92, 1 0 5. 
111-13. 

5. Malthusianism. Bulgakov I, 214, 

255. II, 41 etc. II, 212 (France 
N.B.) — cf. II, 159. 

Especially II, 221, et seq. 223, Bulgakov about 
237 and 233, 249, 265 N.B. Hertz 1,139 
(and 261). Ireland II, 351, 384. ("remarkable"). 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 33 



II 

6. 



10. 



Bulgakov + Hertz. Agricultural 
machinery Bulgakov I, 43-51. 
Hertz pp. 40, 60-65. Reactionary 
attitude towards agricultural ma- 
chinery: Hertz, 65; Bulgakov I, 
51-52; II, 103. 

Con on machines. Hertz 36 
(America); 43-44; 15 (latifun- 
dia), 124 (steam plough). Bulga- 
kov I, 240; II, 115, 133. 
Bulgakov + Hertz. Large- and 
small-scale production. Bulgakov 
I, 142, 154; II, 135; 280 (Cf. 
282-83). 

Con— Bulgakov I, 239-40. Hertz 
52, 81. (Machines on small 
farms). Con 74 (small farms 
>labour); 89-90 (peasant's 
labour rent); 91-92 (collateral 
employment). 

Bulgakov II, 247 (small farms< 
rich in capital). 



Machines in Britain: 
I, 252 



(Hertz 67: higher 
yields from steam 
plough). 

Con — Bulgakov. 
In Britain: I, 311, 
316, 318-19. Small- 
scale production was 
> damaged. 
I, 333 (in Britain—? 
their (small farms') 
unviability has not 
been proved?) 



France II, 188-89. 
(reduction in the 
number of medium 
farms — Bulgakov's 
dodges) II, 213 
(small farms "in 
the vanguard" ??). 
Ireland II, 
359-60 

Hertz: "definition of capitalism^ (p. 10) — and Chernov 
No. 4, 133. 

Hertz (and Bulgakov in Nachalo 11 ?) — mortgages. Hertz 
24, 26, 28. (Chernov No. 10, 216-17). Kautsky's 
reply. 

"Engels's mistake" (Hertz 31; Chernov No. 8, 203). 
Cf. Bulgakov I, 49 and II, 433 ("naivete). 
Cf. Electric power in agriculture (Pringsheim, Mack, 
K. Kautsky's 



34 



V. I. LENIN 



III 

11. Chernov — "Form and content of 
capitalism": No. 6, 209; No. 8, 
228. 

12. Chernov about Russian Marxists: 
No. 4, 139; No. 4, 141; No. 8, 
238; No. 10, 213; No. 11, 241 
and No. 7,166 (who are their com- 
rades?) eulogises Nikolai — on 
and Kablukov: No. 10, 237. 



13. Chernov. Kautsky is "annihilated' 
grasp what Marx says" (No. 7 ,169) 
At the Glorious Post on usury, 
characteristics of the proletariat. 
Voroshilov: No. 8, 229. (Cf. K. Kautsky) 



Distortion of Marx- 
ism: International: 
No. 5, 35. Marx on 
agriculture No. 6, 
216, 231 and many 
others. Engels on 
Belgium, No. 10, 
234. 

The journal Nachalo 

I, pp. 7 and 13. 
"have even failed to 
idem in the collection 
on the distinguishing 



IV 
14. 

15. 
16. 



M. Hecht (Blondel, p. 27, Hertz 68, 79; Chernov 
No. 8, 206. David). 

K. Klawki (Bulgakov I, 58). A couple of words 
about Auhagen. Hertz 70 and Bulgakov I, 58. (Cf. Hertz 
66; crops in Prussia and Southern Germany.) 
The Condition of the Peasants. (Quo- 
tations by Bulgakov and Hertz.) 



17. Baden Inquiry (Hertz's 
especially); and Bulgakov passim: 

18. VII Conclusions on the "sol- 
id peasantry" (Bulga- 
kov II, 138 N.B. and 456), 
on the peasant's attitude to the 
worker (Bulgakov II, 288; 
Hertz 4-15; 9. Hertz, 6 (with 
1-2 hired labourers) and 5. 
Chernov No. 7, 163 ('petty- 



references 68, 7 9 
especially II, 272). 

Bulgakov II, 289 
(" peasantophobia"). 
Bulgakov II, 176 
("the French peas- 
antry split up into 
the proletariat and 

the proprietors") 
Bulgakov II, 118 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 35 



bourgeois"); No. 10, 240 (peas- 
ant = working man)). 



("solid peasants 
+ technically 
advanced big ones"). 



VI 

19. Baudrillart (Hertz, 15 et 
seq., 5 6-5 8; Bulgakov II, 282). 



Cf. Bulgakov II, 208 
from Baudrillart, Vol. 



Souchon and Maurice. (Cf. Bul- 
gakov II, 280 on hired labour- 
ers on small farms). 

VII 

20. French statistics. Distribution 
of rural population. Hertz 55; 
Bulgakov II, 195-97 and Hertz 
59 and 6 0: (no pauperisation). 
Employers and workers (cf. 
Bulgakov II, 191). 
Establishments with hired la- 
bourers. 



VIII 

21. 



German statistics. 
Acreage statistics. 
Fewer labourers owning land 
(Bulgakov II, 106). 
Latifundia. (Cf. Hertz 15; 
Bulgakov II, 126, 190, 363). 
Industrialisation (Bulgakov II, 
116; Hertz 88). 



Co-operatives (cf. Baden data 
on the Winzers). Hertz 120. 



Souchon on the need 
of big and small 
farms. Cf. Bulga- 
kov I, 338 (Britain: 
verdict of history — 
for small farms) 
Cf. Rentenguter. 18 



Hertz p. 55 and 
p. 140 on the migra- 
tion of peasant 
hired labourers from 
the North to the 
South of France. (Cf. 
Bulgakov II, 191.) 



—Bulgakov II, 260 

illusion that the 
big farm is vehi- 
cle of progress. 

—Hertz 21, 89 
("The chief task of 
socialism"). 



36 



V. I. LENIN 



IX 

22. Belgium. (Vandervelde. Subsi- 
diary earnings. Chlapowski. The 
state of small-scale production 
Collateral earnings). 

X 

23. Overall data on owners and 
labourers in European agricul- 
ture (Capitalist system). 
(Cf. Maurice on concentration. 
Hertz 82 and 55 (1)). 

24. Nonsense about the concept of 
"peasantry". (Cf. Russian statis- 
tics. Its advantages.) 

25. Distortion of Engels ("The Peas- 
ant Question") on the question 
of co-operatives. Hertz 122 
(Chernov No. 5, 42; No. 7, 157) 

26. Bulgakov > consistent (II, 287, 
266, 288). Hertz on socialism: 
pp. 7, 14, 10, 72-73, 123, 76, 
93, 105. 

On socialism: Bulgakov II, 289, 
4 5 6, 26 6 [denial of class 
struggle: cf. also Bulgakov I, 
303 and 301.— Britain]. 

27. Class struggle o r co-opera- 
tion. Hertz 21, 89. ("The chief 
task of socialism".) (Cf. Cher- 
nov. Non-capitalist evolution 
No. 5, 47; No. 10, 229, 243-44.) 



Chernov in the collection. 
At the Glorious Post 19 5, 
185, 188, 196. 



Cf. Bulgakov II, 455 
("the grain prob- 
lem > terrible than 
the social one") 



Antithesis of town 
and country. Hertz 
76 

Bulgakov in 
N achalo 



Class struggle or 
adaptation to the 
interests of the big 
and petty bourgeoi- 
sie. 

(Is the money econo- 
my the best way? 
Hertz 20). 
[Bulgakov versus 
socialism, see § 26]. 
Bulgakov II, 255 
(in favour of vege- 
table plots: cf, II, 
105. Agrarian. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 37 



Idem on corn taxes. 
II, 141-48). 

28. Bottger (Cf. K. Kautsky) (Quoted by Chernov No.) 
XI 

29. Russian agrarian programme and No. 3 of Iskra. 
Approach 

1) class struggle 1 

2) its two forms J 

30. Objections of 2a3b ("cut-off lands"). 
The pros and cons. 



{ 



Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1932 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



38 



CONTENTS 
OF "THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 
AND THE 'CRITICS OF MARX"' 



I. 


(Law of diminishing returns) 


pp. 


2- 27 


II. 


(Theory of rent) 


pp. 


27- 48 


III. 


(Machines) 


pp. 


48- 73 


IV. 


(Town and country) 


pp. 


74-101 


V. 


(Hecht) 


pp. 


102-117 


VI. 


(Klawki) 


pp. 


118-144 


VII. 


(Baden Inquiry) 


pp. 


144-168 


VIII. 


(German statistics) 


pp. 


168-189 


IX. 


(idem) 


pp. 


189-222 



Written in June-September 1901 



First published in 1932 
in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



Printed from the original 



Lenin's manuscript, 
Contents of "The Agrarian Question 
and the 'Critics of Marx'". 
Earlier than February 1906 



39 



f 



§V) 

§VI) 

§VI 



§ VII 
VII 



VIII 



IX 



CONTENTS OF CHAPTERS V-IX 
OF "THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 
AND THE 'CRITICS OF MARX"' 19 

1-16 (102-117). Hecht 



PP 

pp. 17-39 
pp. 39-43 



(118 — ). Auhagen and Klawki. f " 

Mr. Bulgakov's Concen- 
quotations from - ■ trated 
The Condition of feed 
the Peasants I . 

43-56 (Baden Inquiry) 
56-67 Meaning of the disintegration 
of the peasantry and Bulgakov's 
ignoring of this. 
67-89 Results of German statistics 

(1) increase of small farms 

(2) meaning of latifundia 

(3) increase of medium farms: 
worsening of draught animals. 

89-121 Overall German statistics 
89-94 livestock in various groups of farms 
94-98 industries 



98-108 dairy farming 
108-112 co-operatives 



tobacco-growing 
+ wine-growing 



112-121 rural population with and without land 



) rapid silent reading — 
about half an hour 



120 pages ^ about 2 hours 



Written before February 1906 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



40 



MARXIST VIEWS OF THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 
IN EUROPE AND RUSSIA 21 

OUTLINE OF LECTURES 

FIRST VARIANT 

MARXIST VIEWS OF THE AGRARIAN 
QUESTION 
IN EUROPE AND RUSSIA 

A. General Theory of the Agrarian Question. 

1. Growth of commercial agriculture. — Phases of proc- 
ess. — Formation of market: towns. — Peasant- 
industrialist (Capital, III, 2?). 22 — Remnants of natu- 
ral economy. — Degree of peasant's subordination 
to market. — Free competition in agriculture. For 
how long? 

N.B. / Decline of natural peasant household industries \ 
\ K. Kautsky and Engels. 23 I 
Need of money (Usurers. Taxes). 

2. Law of diminishing returns. Ricardo — Marx (Bulgakov 
and Maslov lately). 

3. Theory of rent. Ricardo — Marx: differential and abso- 
lute rent. (Maslov's mistake.) 

3a. Separation of town from country (cf. 
Bulgakov and Hertz. Zarya No. 2-3. 24 Nossig*). 

4. Present agricultural crisis. (Parvus). 

Inflation and consolidation of rent. Burden of rent. 



See pp. 263-64.— Ed. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 41 



5. The "mission" of capital in agriculture 

1) separation of landownership from Production ~| 
- 2) socialisation f- 
. 3) rationalisation J 

B. Small- Scale Production, in Agriculture (1-4 — 
one lecture; 5-6, another). 

1. Technical superiority of large-scale production. Statistics. 
Machines. (Large-scale economy and large-scale land- 
ownership.) 

2. Displacement, proletarisation of the peasantry. Flight 
to towns. — Handicraft industries. — Collateral em- 
ployment. 

3. Worsening of draught animals. German statistics. 
Use of cow as draught animal. 

S~ 

Addition. Baudrillart, Souchon, Chlapowski 
■ ✓ 

4. Co-operatives. German statistics 25 (Hertz, David, etc.) 

5. Comparison of profitability of big and small f man ~| 
farms. Klawki,* Stumpfe. Cf. Hecht, The < cattle V 
Condition of the Peasants. I land J 

6. South-German Inquiries. Baden, Bavaria, Wiirttem- 
berg. 26 

C. Statements of Principles by Marxists in 
the West. 



Transfer to end? of Section IV (D) 

The Agrarian Programme of 
West-European and Russian 
Social - Democrats 



1. Marx and Engels in the 1840s. The Communist Man- 
ifesto. — Neue Rheinische Zeitung 21 — Marx on American 
agriculture in the 1840s. 28 

2. Resolutions of the International , 29 Engels in 1874, his 
programme. 30 

3. The agrarian debates of 1895. 31 Engels in Die Neue 
Zeit on the French and German programmes. 

N.B. Social- Democrats in the Countryside. 
(Bottger Hugo). 



See pp. 138-59.— Ed. 



42 



V. I. LENIN 



4. K. Kautsky in Soziale Revolution. 

[A § from D to this point? Principles of the Russian 
agrarian programme.]* 

D. The Agrarian Question in Russia. 

To D. Russia's agricultural decline. Stagnation. 

Famines. Collapse or transition to capi- 
talism? 



Narod- 
nik 
the- 
ories 



1. Commune. Fiscal nature ig- 
nored. Isolation ignored. 
,2. People's production. Cherny- 
shevsky— .... (V. V., N.— on). 
3. No soil for capitalism. No 
internal market. Decline. 



Flight from 
"people's pro- 
duction" in the 
central areas to 
the capital and 
the border areas. 



N.B. 



4. 
5. 

6. 



7. 
8. 



9. 



Historical significance of Narodnik theories. 
Disintegration of the peasantry . Overall data. Results. 
Meaning ( = petty bourgeoisie) 

Class struggle in the countryside. Formation of an 
agricultural proletariat. Transition from the corvee 
system to the capitalist economy. 
Growth of commercial and capitalist farming. 
Struggle against the relicts of serfdom. Freedom of 
movement (Maslov). 32 Withdrawal from commune. 
Freedom to alienate land. 

Agrarian programme of the Social-Democrats. "Cut- 
off lands". 



Essay II 33 (agrarian statistics) 

1. Hecht + B a v a r i a n Inquiry 

2. (Auhagen) Klawki + Wiirttemberg Inquiry 

3. The Condition of the Peasants + Stumpfe 

4. Baden Inquiry. 

5. German agrarian statistics 

small-scale economy 
latifundia 

middle peasantry. Worsening of animals. 

6. Livestock. Industries. 

* Section C crossed out in MS.— Ed. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 43 



7. Dairy farming (tobacco-growing, wine-growing). 

8. Co-operatives. 

9. Rural population by status. 



A. 1 dessiatine — 80 poods. 
40 rubles of invested 
capital + 8 rubles of 
profit = 48 rubles-^80 = 

B. 1 dessiatine — 75 poods. 
40 rubles of invested 
capital + 8 rubles of 
profit = 48 rubles-^75 = 

A) 
B) 

C) 1 dessiatine — 60 poods. 
40 rubles of invested 
capital + 8 rubles of 
profit = 48-^60 = 

Written before February 10 (23), 
1903 

First published in 1932 
in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



Rent 34 

60 kopeks 51. 2 r. (64 k.) 3. 2 r. 

64 kopeks 48 r. (64 k.) 

— 64 r. 16 r. 

— 60 r. 12 r. 

80 kopeks 48 r. 

Printed from the original 



44 



V. I. LENIN 



SECOND VARIANT 

MARXIST VIEWS OF THE AGRARIAN 
QUESTION 
IN EUROPE AND RUSSIA 



A. General Theory of the Agrarian 
Question. 
(One lecture for A) 

1. Theory implies capitalist agriculture = commodity 

production + wage labour. 
Growth of commercial agriculture: formation of market 

towns (in Europe and in Russia) 

industrial development (Parvus) 

international grain trade. 
Forms of commercial agriculture 

its areas 



specialisation 
industries 




David, p. 152 
the whole, it 



note: "On 
is small-scale N.B. 
production that is prosper- 
ing in vegetable- and fruit- 
growing as well as in agri- 
culture. According to 1895 
industrial statistics, of 
32,540 fruit and vegetable 
farms, 

40 per cent had an acreage of less 
than 20 ares, 



example of concen- 
tration of dairy 
farming on farms 
with up to 2 hec- 
tares: p. 103 of the 

article* 
David (and K. Ka- 
utsky) on market- 
gardening 



* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 212.— Ed. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 45 



need 



money 



25 per cent from 20 to 50 ares, 
and 'only' 6 per cent more 
than 2 hectares." 
Degree of the peasant's subordination to the market 
percentage of cash budget. 
Usurers. Taxes. 

Decline of patriarchal household industries 
. (K. Kautsky and Engels) 
Peasant = half industrialist and half merchant 
{Capital, III, 2, 346, 35 Development of Capital- 
ism, 100*)) 

Formation of a class of farmers and a class of agricultural 
hired labourers is the start of the process (K. Kautsky. 
P. 27. 36 Capital, III, 2, 332. 37 Development of Capital- 
ism 118**) 

diverse forms of agricultur- 
al wage labour (Develop- 
ment of Capitalism 120***) 



<cf. article pp. 68- 
70 on the "depend- 
ent" and "inde- 
pendent" nature of 
small farmers**** 
fragmentation, par- 
cellisation of peas- 
ant holdings. 



N.B. 



(non)influence of the form 
of landownership (Develop- 
ment of Capitalism 242*****) 
2. Theory of rent. 

Marx's theory of value. Rent can come only from surplus 

value, that is from surplus profit. 
Profit ( = surplus value: Capital). Average profit 

(K. Kautsky, 67). 
Surplus profit comes from the diffe- Differential 
rences in fertility rent 
Differential Rent I. 

The price of grain is determined by the worst 
production 

{limited quantity of land \ 
growth of market J 
Differential Rent II: additional investment 
(expenditure) of capital into the land. 



* See present edition, Vol. 3, pp 155-56.— Ed. 
** Ibid., p. 176. ~ Ed. 
*** Ibid., pp. 178-79. —Ed. 
**** Ibid., Vol. 5, pp. 195-96.— Ed. 
*****Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 323-24.— Ed. 



46 



V. I. LENIN 



Differential Rent grows in a mass of (most) combinations. 
Differential Rent originates from capitalist enter- 
prise on the land 

it comes from the difference in the quantity of pro- 
duce. 

Monopoly of private ownership of land. Absolute 

rent 

— Absolute rent 

or = monopoly price 
(absolute rent) = or = from the lowest composition of 

agricultural capital 
Absolute rent does not come from Price 

capitalist enterprise on the land of land 

but from the private owner- 
ship of land 
— it does not originate from the 

quantity of produce, but is a 

tribute 

A tribute fixed in the price of land. 

Price of land = capitalised rent. Removal of capital from 
agriculture 

Fixing of high prices. 
3. Role of rent and capitalism in agriculture. 
Rent prevents grain prices from Role 

falling (Parvus) of rent 

cf. Capital, III, 2,? 38 

Rent takes away all agricultural improvements 
all profits over and above the average. 

(Nationalisation of land would do away with absolute 
rent.) 

Agrarian crisis does away with absolute rent. 

{competition between lands without rent\ 
and lands with rent. J 
Two forms of levying rent: Forms of 

the farmer system (K. Kautsky, 85) levying rent 
the mortgage system (K. Kautsky 
87-89. Development of Capitalism, 
442*) 



See present edition, Vol. 3, p. 555. — Ed. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 47 



Both processes = 

(1) separation of the landowner from agriculture. In 
this context, deal with the role of capitalism in 
agriculture. 

(2) rationalisation of agriculture (competition) 

(3) its socialisation 

(4) elimination of indenture and labour service. 

4. [3]. Law of diminishing returns. 

Ricardo (and West). Marx's correction. 
Zarya No. 2-3, p.* 

Bulgakov: the difficult problem of grain production. 

Refutation. Zarya No. 2-3, p.** 

Maslov 

con: on the one hand, against Bulgakov 

on the other, admission of > productivity of extensive 
farming. Maslov pp. 7 2, 83 et al. Especially 7 2. 
Con— Marx III, 2, 210 39 Extract 
{Development of Capitalism, 186 from Marx 

and 18 7***) on R. Jones 40 

"concentrate all agriculture on 1 dessiatine" 

Maslov, pp. 79 and 110 (without "the law" there would 
have been no differential rent) 

p. 86 (incontrovertible fact of diminishing returns) 
Con — p. 114 (there are different cases!) 
Maslov p. 7 2. Economists denying "the law" labour under 
a misunderstanding. 

110: productivity of labour may grow, but "the law" 
remains. (No proof!) 

130-31: con Marx (denial of absolute rent). 
N.B. 10 9: "he does not explain competition by the level 
of rent but vice versa". = Meaning of Maslov' s mistake. 
Obscures tribute (rent) by means of ostensibly 
natural causes, as the cost of producing grain. 

5. Contradictions of agricultural capitalism: rationalisa- 
tion of agriculture — and plunder of the soil 
Meaning of separation of town from country (Bulgakov 
and Hertz and Chernov and Zarya No. 2-3, p.*) 
Nossig, p. 103: extracts 

* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 110.— Ed. 
** Ibid., pp. 114-19. -Ed. 
***See present edition, Vol. 3, pp. 257-59.— Ed. 



48 



V. I. LENIN 



Elimination of indenture — and the debasement of the 
agricultural hired labourer and small peasant. 

Development of the productive forces — and the growth of 
tribute, the rent, which prevents the lowering of 
prices and investment of capital into agriculture. 

Superiority of the big farm (as capitalism de- 
velops). 

To A. 1) K. Kautsky, 2) Development of Capitalism; 
3) Zarya (2-3) 4) Maslov 5) Parvus 6) Extracts from 
Nossig. 

B. Small- and large-scale production 
in agriculture. (Two lectures for B.)** 

1. The approach to the question as an isolated one is 
incorrect 

everything within the framework of capitalism. \ 
The important thing is not the displacement I 
of small-scale farming but the wholesale I 
capitalist transformation of agriculture. / 

2. Technical superiority of large-scale production. Ma- 
chines. Zarya No. 2-3*** (objections of Bulgakov, 
Hertz, David, etc.) 

Commercial cost-cutting 

machines 
(a) fertilisers 

drainage 

a f division of labour 
a I co- operatives 

((3) buildings 

implements 
(Y) marketing and purchasing 
3. Diverse forms of displacement and decline 
of small farms: household industries 
outside seasonal work 
wage labour 
worsening of nutrition 
more work 

* See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 146-59.— Ed. 
** Points 1, 2 and 3 of Section B in the manuscript are crossed out in 
plain pencil by means of two vertical lines, apparently in the process or an 
editorial reading. — Ed. 

***See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 130-46.— Ed. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 49 



worsening of 



debts 

4. Detailed s t u d i 
(2nd agrarian article) 
Hecht 
Auhagen 
Klawki 

The Condition of the 

Peasants 
Baden Inquiry 



animals 

land (plunder) 



etc. 



e s 



N.B. 
/ -\-Bavarian 
+ Wiirttem- 
berg 



N.B. 
+ Baudrillart 
+ Souchon 



+ Chlapowski 
N.B. 



i +Stumpfe 
N.B. 

{Result: (1) man 
(2) cattle 
(3) land 

5. Overall data of German agrarian statistics 

(1) small farms 

(2) latifundia 

(3) medium farms. Worsening of animals 
Distribution of animals. Industries. 

Dairy farming (tobacco-growing, wine-growing) 

6. — Co-operatives 

7. — Loss of land and proletarisation. 
Distribution of rural population 
by land holdings. 

C. The Agrarian Question in Russia 
(1 lecture for C). 

1. Old views = Narodism 
Peasantry = "people's produc- 
tion" (not petty bourgeoisie) 
Commune = rudiments of com- 
munism (not fiscal) 
no soil for capitalism: no inter- 
nal market, peasantry is the 
greatest antagonist, no class 
struggle in agriculture. 

2. This is a whole world outlook 
starting from Herzen and end 
ing with N. — on. 41 A vast 
stretch of social thinking. l ing 



Essence 
of N a r o d i s 



m 



agrarian 
demo cr ac z/". 
Its historical mean- 



50 



V. I. LENIN 



11 



survivals 
among Social- 
ist-Revolu- 
tionaries 



the 



disintegra- 
tion of 
peasantry 
the mistake 
of the Davids) 



Its historical mean- 
ing: idealisation of 
the struggle against serfdom and 
its relicts ("Agrarische Demo- 
kratie") Marx 

Elements of democracy 

+ Utopian socialism 

+ petty-bourgeois reforms 

+ reactionary nature of the 

petty bourgeois. 

Separate wheat from chaff. 
3. Central question: disinte- 
gration of peasantry, its 

transformation into petty 

bourgeoisie, class 

struggle in 

countryside 
Disintegration 

Ways of studying it 

Principal symptoms of it 

81 

(14 symptoms, 2 
Analysis of each 
(Extract from 
peasants.) 

Con — Vikhlyaev p. 108. 42 Loss of horses, "statics" and 
"dynamics". 

Conclusions = petty bourgeoisie. (Devel- 
opment of Capitalism, 115, §2**) 
Overall results from data of horse census (Development 
of Capitalism, 92***). 

Areas of disintegration: South of Russia, dairy 
farming, Amur (Maslov 324), Orenburg (Maslov 325), 
Siberian butter - making. 

(there is disintegration wherever the peasant is in \ 
a better position J 
internal tendencies to disintegration / 



of peasantry. 

(inside commune). 

Development of Capitalism 

and 12 +)* 

symptom with a few examples. 
Maslov on the buying of land by 



* See present edition, Vol. 3, p. 129.— Ed. 
** Ibid., pp. 172-73. -Ed. 
*** Ibid., p. 144. -Ed. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 51 



The agrarian system of Russia. There would be no 
need for an agrarian programme, if it were a question of 
capitalism alone: (Engels. Bottger). But — the rel- 
icts of serfdom. 



4. 



Delays in disintegration: 
labour service 
high taxes 
N.B. no freedom of movement — 
(Maslov on commune: 
extract). 
usurer's capital 
Transition from the corvee system 
to the capitalist economy. 

Labour service system. 
{Development of Capi- 
talism, 133, 135*) 
cut-off lands, etc. 
hired labourers 
3.5 million at 



(trans- \ 
itional J 
system / 



Class of 
in agriculture: 
least. 

5. Migration of workers in Russia 
as summarised development of 
capitalism 

fleeing from p e o- 
p I e's production 
(Development of Capitalism 
466-469).** 
Hence, the essence of the present 
moment in the economic evolu- 
tion (and the whole history) of 
Russia. 

= Elimination of the relicts of serf- 
dom 

= freedom of capitalist develop- 
ment 

= freedom of proletariat's class 
struggle 



relicts 
of 

serfdom 



Migration 
of workers 
in Russia 



*See present edition, Vol. 3, pp. 197-98, 199-200. —Ed. 
** Ibid., pp. 585-88.— Ed. 



52 



V. I. LENIN 



A totally diffe-" 
rent agrarian 
question (than 
. in Europe) 



Stagnation, 
famines. Dec- 
line? o r free- 
dom for capi- 
talism 



There is the nucleus of Narodism, its 

revolutionary-democratic nucleus 
Rich peasantry already there 

Diverse forms 
of hired labour 



10 million 
Development 
of Capitalism 
462* 



elimination of the relicts of 
serfdom will formalise and en- 
hance its power 
higher living standards will 
expand the internal market, 
and develop industry 
development of the proletariat 
and the class struggle 
for socialism. 



TOT 



Written before February 10 (23), 

First published in 1932 
in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



1903 



Essence of 
our agrarian 
programme 



Failure of the So- 
cialist-Revolutio- 
naries and the 
Ryazanovs to under- 
stand the agrarian 
programme 
Rudin's theses** 
"Moderate nature" 
of cut-off lands. 
Empty talk: 
co-operation + so- 
cialisation + 
expropriation — it 
is neither agrarian 
nor a programme 



Printed from the original 



* See present edition, 
**See p. 61— Ed. 



Vol. 3, p. 581.— Ed. 



53 



THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME 
OF THE SOCIALIST-REVOLUTIONARIES 
AND OF THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS 43 

OUTLINE OF LECTURE 

FIRST VARIANT 
THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME 
OF THE SOCIALIST-REVOLUTIONARIES 
AND OF THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRATS 



In order to make a comparison of the programmes and 
to assess them, it is necessary to examine the principles, the 
theory, from which the programme flows. 

A) Attitude of the S.R.s to the Narodniks. 45 



1. S.R.s are neither for nor 
against. 

2. Rudin 46 29: "valuable leg- 
acy" ("the purified"!?) 

3. Rudin denies differentia- 
tion Rudin 21. (!) 

4. Bashful concealment of 
Narodism. 

5. And failure to understand its 
historical significance (the initial 
form of democracy "agrarische 
Demokratie"). 

6. Deviation: the orthodox, 
the dogmatists start from Rus- 
sian relations and data, where- 
as the "heirs" of the Narodniks 
have nothing to say about this, 
but then they travel all over 
Belgium + Italy. 



/ 



\ 



"Already land in' 
some parts of Russia 
is flowing from cap- 
ital to labour" 
No. 8, p. 8 47 



Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 11, pp. 8-9: David 
and K. Kautsky and 
Guesde and Jaures and 
Belgium and Italy!! 
Trying to draw in the peas- 
ant. Into what? 



54 



V. I. LENIN 



B) Failure to Understand the Whole of the Historical and 
Economic Evolution of Russia. 

1. Sitting between two stools; 
between the Narodniks and Marx- 
ism. 

Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii 
No. 1 "the creative side" of !!! 
capitalism. 

(quotation in Zarya No. 1, edi- 
torial). 



2. Failure to understand the 
total change of the two struc- 
tures of life in Russia (the patriar- 
chal structure based on serfdom 
and the capitalist) 

See: 

3. Are there any relicts of 
serfdom? Is there a task to 
develop capitalism? 

No: Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 8, p. 4. Yes: Revolutsionnaya 
Rossiya, No. 15, 6. 

"The 1861 reforms have cleared 
the way (!) and given full (!!!) 
scope to the development of 
!! capitalism." 



4. Cut-off lands — indenture. 
Let's assume that's so (Rudin 
14). "But not widely compre- 
hensive" Rudin 14 (!) 



Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 12, 6: the peasant — 
"servant and master" 
lives a life based on the 

'Haw of labour" 
The class struggle in the 
countryside (Revolutsi- 
onnaya Rossiya No. 11). 
"We do not agree that 
the peasantry belongs" 
to the petty-bour- 
geois sections. 
(A centre of Narodism 
and Marxism!) 
"family" and "bourgeois- I 
capitalist" economies j 

Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 11, p. 9: "they 
failed to see that the 
! creative role of capital- 
ism in agriculture gives 
way to the destructive 
one", "the disorgan- 
ising" one. 

Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 15, 6: if the peas- 
antry is demanding an 
"equalisation of land" 
there are only two ways: 
(1) transfer to individual 
ownership or (2) to 
collective ownership, 
socialisation. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 55 



This fails to give a b r o a d\\ 

provision of land" (Rudin 14). 

"Give" more, promise more!! 
5. Mr. Rudin' s two theses (17) 

(a) Allotment of land will help the 
peasant to fight capitalism! 

((3) it will slow down the capital- 
isation of large-scale farming, 
(a process!!) which is 
grinding slow as it is 
Perhaps + thesis (y) the "blunt- 
ing" of the class struggle (17). 



/'Don't analyse! What 
for? What does the 
peasant want? "addi- 
tion of land" !! 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 8, p. 7? 
we do not count on the 
well-to-do peasants, for 
this is the start of the 

Vsocialist movement 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 13, p. 5: "no doubt" 
that the peasant move- 
ment is not socialist. 
But from half-socialist 
ideas the propagandist 
may arrive at "purely 

! socialist conclusions". 



The poor versus 
the rich, whereas 
1 1 y i n speaks of 
the merger of the 
bourgeois and the 
proletarian ele- 
ments in the move- 
V ment 



C. Failure to Understand the Class Struggle and Efforts to 



Obscure It. 

1. The peasantry will not stop 
at the cut-off lands. Rudin 18. 

2. The peasantry — "labour" 
principle 

(and not class struggle?) 
Rudin 18. 

3. What will happen after 
the cut-off lands? Consequent on 
the cut-off lands? (Class struggle.) 



/'Half-socialist pro- 
gramme of the peasants. 
Revolutsionnaya Ros- 
siya No. 8, p. 3/1. 

V'Labour principle." 



56 



V. I. LENIN 



Hence: * 

E. Failure to Understand the Russian Revolution. 

1. Is it bourgeois o r democratic? Revolutsionnaya 
Rossiya No. 8, p. 3/2 and "Revolutionary Adventurism". 

Sowing illusions. 

2. Vulgar socialism: private property must not be defend- 
ed. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 13, pp. 5 and 6. Revolutsion- 
naya Rossiya No. 15, 6. 

(Socialists — vehicles of the bourgeois spirit!) 
Con Marx in 1848. ~~~~~~~ 

3. The peasant's equality ("To All the Russian Peasantry" , 
p. 28, §1). 4& — and denial of the right to dispose of the land. 

4. Freedom of movement — and the commune "To All 
the Russian Peasantry", p. 28, §1. 

(Maslov's data) 



F. The Social- Democratic Agrarian Programme. 



1. Unfeasible? We vouch 

2. Its principles (a) Serfdom »»-> 

(P) Class struggle 
(y) Socialism. 

3. Its meaning = the rural prole- 
tariat must help the rich and well-to-do 
peasant to fight serfdom. 



5. What are we going to tell the 
peasant? 



Martynov 
"Fearful for Marty- 
nov" Rudin 26. 
Quote from Marty- 
nov. 49 

Rudin "not all the 
peasants are hostile 
to the old*) re- 
gime" 15-16. 
Against: quote 
fr om Eng el- 
hardt 50 
Agrarian system 
(10:lV2-2-6y2) 51 



*) Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 8, p. 7, 1: '''petty- 
bourgeois sections" 1 ' always in general" 
"hold on to the existing order" (Sic!) 

* Lenin indicated a switch of points by means of a bracket in blue pencil, 
but failed to alter the alphabetical order of the points. They are given as indi- 
cated. — Ed. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 57 



4. The question of reviewing 
the peasant reform has been raised ' 
by all the progressive (= lib- 
eral) intelligentsia of Russia. 



Quote from V. V. 



52 



Cf. Ireland. 

1) agrarian non-capital- 
ist struggle. 

2) buying out now. 

3) the Narodniks draw a 
comparison between 
Russia and Ireland. 



Hence: 



D. Vulgarised Petty-Bourgeois Narodism + Bourgeois 
"Criticism" 



Unprincipled attacks 
(wails) against the 
"dogmatists" etc. 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 8 passim. 



Engels supplemented by 
Bottger: Engels's predic- 
tion is coming true. 



1. Between the orthodox and 
the critics (Vestnik Russkoi Re- 
volutsii No. 2, p. 57). The small 
is growing. 

2. "New Way to Socialism" 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya. 

3. Game: distortion of Engels 
(extracts). Revolutsionnaya Ros- 
siya No. 14, p. 6 and Rudin 21. 

4. Attitude to the small peasant on the part of our pro- 
gramme and the whole working-class = Social-Democratic 
socialism. 

5. Co-operatives. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 8, p. 11 
("all possible types"). 

in general! 
(Levitsky) 

Bourgeois and socialist co-operatives 
German and Russian data! German 

Rocquigny 53 
Russian 

G. Unprincipled Stand of the Socialist-Revolutionaries 

1. Man without convictions — party without principles. 

2. Rudin 16: "the future will clarify". 

3. Ibid: "try to prevail upon the farm hand" (!!) 

4. No programme! Con — Rudin, 4 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya also boasts in No. 11, p. 6 ("Our 
programme has been put forward") (?) 



58 



V. I. LENIN 



Thus, 

H. "Universal men" "Fellows, there's more 

We have seen the co-opera- land to be had!" 
tives, Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 

but about No. 8, p. 7. 

Socialisation. 
Four meanings: 

1) = nationalisation. stressing this to be a 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 8, minimum! 
p. 11. socialisation = i.e., 
(economic association et al.). "transfer to the owner- 

2) = socialist revolution ("To ship of society and the 
All the Russian Peasantry") use of the working 
p. 31, §12. (minimum?) people?" 

3) = commune. Popular anarchy. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 8, pp. 4, 2. 

"The peasantry proclaims the equalisation principle." 
"We are free from idealisation", but it is easier to start 
from the "traditions of communal management". "Supersti- 
tious hostility to the communal principle." 

"Colossal organisation of the communal peasantry" 
No. 8, p. 9. 

no other class is so impelled to political struggle. Ibidem, 
p. 8 

use on labour and equal lines to be "implemented to the 
end" No. 8, p. 8. 

(Equalisation? 
between communes?) 
4. = "Dutch meaning" Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 15, 
p. 8, "the Dutch type is most suitable"*), i.e., communalisa- 
tion 

(petty-bourgeois triviality) 
"Universal men" indeed! 

Written before February 18 
(March 3), 1903 

First published in 1932 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



It 



*) Dutch: "extension of the commune's rights in taxing, 
buying out and expropriating land". Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 15, 7. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 59 



SECOND VARIANT 

THE AGRARIAN PROGRAMME OF THE 
SOCIALIST-REVOLUTIONARIES 
AND OF THE S 0 C I A L - D E M 0 C R A T S 

Three main themes: I. The Basic Principles of an Agrarian 
Programme. II. The Agrarian Programme of the Social- 
Democrats. III. The Agrarian Programme of the Socialist- 
Revolutionaries . 

I. T h e Basic Principles of an 
Agrarian Programme (= the views of 
Russian socialists of the agrarian question in Russia). 

1. Narodism — the 2 of the old socialist views of the 
agrarian question. The whole history of Russian social- 
ist thinking on the agrarian question is a history of Narod- 
ism and its struggle against Marxism. 

2. S.R.s neither here nor there. 

On the one hand — the "creative" side of capitalism (Vestnik 
Russkoi Revolutsii No. 1, p. 2) 
not saying: "We are Narodist Socialists". 

On the other hand — "they do not recognise the 
petty -bourgeois nature of the peasantry" (R e v o I u- 
tsionnaya Rossiya No. 11, p. 7) 
"family and bourgeois-capitalist economies" 
ibidem 

Rudin (21) denies the "differentiation" 
(Rudin 21) "already land in some parts" "is 
flowing from capital to labour" {Revolutsionnaya 
Rossiya No. 8, p. 8). 

the peasant — "law of labour" , "servant and master" 
{Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 12, 6). 



60 



V. I. LENIN 



3. Equivocation. War on the "dogmatists", the orthodox, 
and at the same time avoidance of a straightforward stand on 
questions of Russian socialism, and travel all over Belgi- 
um + Italy! 

Between the "critics" and the "orthodox" 
David and K. Kautsky \ ^ tc 
Jaures and Guesde J 

Compare Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii No. 2, p. 57; (K. Kaut- 
sky and "critics") 

4. "Game": quotations from Engels. "Agreeing" with 
Liebknecht, and with Marx and with Engels!! 

Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 1 4, p. 7, quotations from 
Engels (idem Rudin briefly 21) 
(total distortion of Engels) 

Extracts from Engels. 

Engels supplemented by Bottger. (The prediction is 
coming true.) 

5. An instance of confusion in Russian issues: are 
there any relicts of serfdom? No : Revolutsion- 
naya Rossiya No. 8, p. 4. 

Full scope given!!! 

Yes, not juridical but economic. Revolu- 
tsionnaya Rossiya No. 15, 6. 

{No straightforward answer!! No principle at all!!} 
In the event, our agrarian programme or the "cut-off 
lands" cannot be understood!! 

Nothing can be understood without clarifying your atti- 
tude to the relicts of serfdom and to the whole "change", 
all the post-reform economic evolution. 

6. Socialists can never stand up for private property: 
"socialists" are "vehicles" of the "bourgeois spirit". Revo- 
lutsionnaya Rossiya No. 1 3, 5 and 6, No. 15,6. 

they have adopted the "slogans of the bourgeois camp", etc. 

"introduction of the bourgeois spirit" into the programme. 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 1 5, p. 7. 
{vulgar socialism) 
Con— Marx in 1848* 



In the MS., Point 6 is crossed out in plain pencil. — Ed. 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 61 



extracts 

7. Failure to understand (1) relicts of serfdom 

(2) historical significance of 
small private free 
property leads to total in- 
comprehension of the cut- 
off lands. 

Instead of assessing the historical significance 
they make an assessment in general in the sense of provi- 
sion. Rudin 14: it involves indenture, etc., but not 
"widely comprehensive" \\ ( there is no "broad land provision") 
{Rudin 14) 



1 good wishes instead of a conclusion from the N 
evolution: either "allotment of land" to 
peasants as their private property, or the 
"organisation" of equalised peasant land 

\ tenure. 



Revolu- 
tsionnaya 
Rossiya 
No. 15, 6 



8. Rudin's "Theses" (p. 17) 

(1) Allotment, of land will help to fight capitalism 

(2) it will slow down the capitalisation of privately 
owned farms, which is grinding slow 
as it is 

(3) it will blunt the class struggle. 



9. They will not stop at the cut-off lands (Rudin 18). Of 
course, not. What then? The class struggle or the "labour" 
principle (Rudin 18)?? 

II. T h e Agrarian Programme of the 
Social - Democrats. 

1. U n fe a s ib I e? We vouch — (in what sense). 



2. Its principles 

(1) relicts of serfdom — cf. Martynov, p. 34. 



Rudin, 26 "fearful for Martynov" 



(2) class struggle 



(3) socialist revolution of the proletariat. 



62 



V. I. LENIN 



3. The land issue is being seen in the cut-off lands, where- 
as that is only a way of formulating the struggle 
against serfdom, of eliminating the relicts of serfdom. 

4. The question of reviewing the "1861 reform" has been 
raised by all the progressive (= liberal = bourgeois-demo- 
cratic) thinking in Russia. 



Quotation from V. V. 



5. The meaning of our agrarian programme: the 
Russian proletariat (including the rural) must support 
the peasantry in the struggle against serfdom. 



Rudin 15-16: "not all the peasants 
are hostile to the old regime'". 

Cf. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 8, p. 7: 
"petty-bourgeois sections" "always in general" 
"hold on to the existing order". 



Q. W h a t are we going to tell the 
peasant? The "peasantry's" agrarian system 
Con Engelhardt 

The Socialist Party and the immediate task = 
start of the class struggle for socialism. 



III. The Agrarian Programme of the 
Socialist - Revolutionaries. 

1. Man without convictions = party without theory 

2. Rudin 16: "the future will clarify": "We must go 
out both to the worker and to the peasant" 

3. No programme. Con — Rudin 4 and Revolu- 
tsionnaya Rossiya No. 11, p. 6. 

("our programme has been put forward") 

4. Reactionary silence on the historic tasks of the moment — 
and invention of benevolent, confused wishes of "sociali- 
sation". 

the peasant's equality "To All the Russian Peasantry" , 
p. 28, § 1 

— and no right to dispose of the land 

freedom of movement — and no withdrawal from the 
commune. (Maslov' s data) 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 63 



5. Co-operatives: Revolutsionnaya f German ~| 
Rossiya No. 8, p. 11 -j Russian I- 

L Rocquigny J 

6. Socialisation 

1) = nationalisation. Revolutsionnaya Rossiya 
No. 8, p. 11. Talks on land, 15 
one in \ 2) = socialist revolution. "To All the 
four J Russian Peasantry", p. 31, § 12. 
parts / 3) = commune. "Colossal organisa- 
tion of the communal peasant- 
ry'' No. 8, p. 9. 

"easier to start from" "communal 
traditions", etc. 

"equalisation principle to be implemented to 
the end" No. 8, p. 8. 

(although we are free from "idealisation"!) 
4) Dutch herring 

"extension of the commune's rights in taxing, 
buying out and expropriating land". Revo- 
lutsionnaya Rossiya No. 15, p. 7 
"The Dutch type is most suitable." 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 15, p. 8. 
Universal men!! 

Written before February 18 
(March 3), 1903 

First published in 1932 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



64 



V. I. LENIN 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF CONCLUDING SPEECH 
PRELIMINARY PLAN 

a Inadequacy of cut-off lands. Nevzorov 3. 

Chernov 11. 

easements. Nevzorov 6 

contradictions between Lenin and Ilyin. Nevzorov 

beyond cut-off lands: confusion (Chernov 1) # 
to a "unfeasibility" {Chernov 10 no} 

class struggle within commune (Chernov 2). Liberal 

kulaks still there: Chernov 3 
n f commune. Nevzorov 5 
P \ collective responsibility. Nevzorov 4 
Y K. Kautsky and Engels. (Chernov 8) (and Chernov 16 
f repetition of predictions about differentiation 

proletarisation (Chernov 17) 

the orthodox and the critics. No concentration (Cher- 
[ nov 18) 
8 co-operatives (4-6 Chernov) 
s socialisation (7 Chernov) 

t, implanting of petty bourgeoisie. Chernov 9 and 
{Nevzorov 1 prodding on) 

Chernov 12 (Russkoye Bogatstvo) 5i 
7] Plekhanov (Chernov 13. Nevzorov 7) 
f* No. 1 of Narodnaya Volya (Chernov 14) 

Bottger (Chernov 15) 
i Narodism = a tag (Chernov 19) 

SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY PLAN 



I 1—3 i 
I 4— y 



I 6—? 

I 7—9 nil # 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 65 



I 5 — nil and a II 1 — ad a 

II 2— 6 nil 
III 12 3—= III 58 

III 4 nil III 6s 

Nevzorov (3 



RESUME OF LECTURE 



"family 
economy"? 
Ni I ! 



+ B6ttger 

correct", etc.!! 
Vladimirov) — 
believe in 



1. Between Narodism and Marxism. 

("Gofstetter") 
Narodism is a "tag" (Mr. Vladimirov) 
Kablukov, N -on (Mr. Vla- 
dimirov) 

(Kary s hev's and Vikh- 
lyaev's "classical studies" 

2. Between the orthodox and the critics. 

Quotation from Engels (Mr. Vladimi- 
rov) 

and K. Kautsky (Mr. Vladimirov) . 
Kautsky's "reservations": "not all is 
[Repetition of predictions (Mr. 
No concentration, "w e do not 
concentration". 
(Minimum programme) 
"There can be no difference of principle between an 
agrarian programme and a labour programme" (Ne- 
vzorov) 

3. Are there any relicts of serfdom? 

Yes and no. Nil. 

cut-off lands not everywhere (Mr. Vladimirov). 
Poltava gubernia 
three types of cut-off lands (Nevzorov) 
easements (Nevzorov) 
Lenin con Ilyin. {Nevzorov) 
labour services are not maintained chiefly by cut-off 
lands (Nevzorov) 
Marx on small property. 

(1) implanting of petty bourgeoisie (Mr. Vladimirov). 

(2) not our business to prod on (Nevzorov and 
quotation from K. Kautsky) 



66 



V. I. LENIN 



{promotion of technical progress} 
(3) Nevzorov. (Marx against Marx) 
Lenin against 

5. What lies beyond the elimination of relicts of serfdom? 
The class struggle or the labour principle? Nil? 



Our agrarian programme 

6. Mr. Vladimirov: "No one said unfeasible." 

Sic Rudin, 13-14 

\\R u s s k i y e Vedomosti = bourgeoisie. 
Quotations from V. V., from Russkiye V e do- 
mo sti on agricultural conference. 55 

7. The principles of an agrarian programme. No one 
has said a word. 

8. Have these principles changed? 

Plekhanov and the 1886 programme. 

I" Plekhanov and nationalisation 
-J Plekhanov and expropriation 

I Marx and expropriation + mortgage 

^ = ^ = + producers' associations. 

Plekhanov said there: "The most likely thing is that 
the lands will pass to the peasant bourgeoisie'" (as Engels 
believ ed).... 

{Plekhanov — extreme weakness of character} 

9. The meaning of our agrarian programme = the Russian 
proletariat must support the peasantry. Nil. 



Socialist-Revolutionary Agrarian 
Programme 

10. Reactionary. Collective responsibility 
and the commune. "7 disagree in principle" (Nevzorov). 
Equality of rights but no withdrawal from the commune. 
Nil. 

I Class struggle within the commune? (Mr. Vladimirov). 
"For that reason" extension of communal land ownership. 

11. Co- operatives. Mr. Vladimirov. Two 
trends (Where? in Revolutsionnaya Rossiya or 
Iskra?) 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 67 



12. Socialisation. 4 meanings. ((Small communes = 
domination of the rural bourgeoisie.)) 

PLAN OF LECTURE RESUME 

finale: root of mistakes 

failed to understand the difficulty 

our agrarian system 

resume 

RESUME OF LECTURE 

a) The root of Nevzorov's mistake is the effort to correct 
Plekhanov, without having understood him. The root of 
the S.R.s' mistake lies deeper: it is a confusion of the 
democratic and the socialist tasks, of the democratic and 
the socialist elements, of the democratic and the socialist 
content of the movement. This confusion is the result of 
the entire social nature of the Socialist-Revolutionary 
movement. Socialist-Revolutionarism = an attempt on the 
part of the petty-bourgeois intelligentsia to obscure the 
working-class movement = radical, revolutionary petty- 
bourgeois democracy. Like the liberal democrats, they 
tend to confuse the democratic and the socialist 
tasks, and also to confuse the issue of the autocracy and 
the question of the agrarian programme. 

b) The S.R.s and Nevzorov have absolutely failed to 
understand the difficulty in drawing up an agrarian 
programme. Theirs applies to everything, and can be 
used anywhere, hence: nowhere. Sd* China and Abyssi- 
nia. Sr* Peru and Uruguay. It is neither a programme nor 
an agrarian one. It does not reflect anything; it does 
not define the moment (the historical moment: cf. 3 
conditions of the programme), it fails to provide 
guidance for the present, current struggle. 

c) Our agrarian system. No answer. 

Four horizontal strata [big + peasant bourgeoisie 
IV2 (6V2 out of 14) + middle peasantry 2 (4 out of 
14) + rural semi-proletariat and proletariat 6V2 millions 



These abbreviations have not been deciphered. — Ed. 



68 



V. I. LENIN 



(3 l h out of 14) 56 ]. If that were all, there would be no 
need for an agrarian programme. But there are also the 
vertical partitions = commune, collective respon- 
sibility, cut-off lands, labour services, indenture. It is 
impossible to liberate the rural semi-proletarian and 
proletarian for the struggle, without also delivering 
the rural bourgeoisie of labour services, 
d) Resume of the differences between the S.R. and the 
S.D. agrarian programmes: 1) truth (semi-serfdom + 
class struggle + capitalist evolution) + 2) untruth (mem- 
ber of a trade union, "colossal organisation of the com- 
munal peasantry", balanced extension of socialisation, 
etc.). 

A policy expounding untruths = a policy of revolution- 
ary adventurism. 

Written between February 18 
(March 3) and February 21 
(March 6), 1903 



First published in 1932 
in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



Printed from the original 



^ -5^ ^ V 2 ^^** 
* tu-—*^- *G ***** cv- 



^ 7 ' 
trfy* — — 





^^^^ ■ 



Lenin's manuscript, 
'The Peasantry and Social-Democracy' 
Not earlier than September 1904 



69 



THE PEASANTRY AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY 



57 



The Peasantry and Social-Democracy 

Marxist Theory and the Social-Democratic Programme 

1. The agrarian question with West-European Social-Dem- 

ocracy. David, etc. 

2. " " in Russia: the old Narodniks, 

the Liberals and the Socialist- 
Revolutionaries. Practical sig- 
nificance during reforms. 

3. L a r g e - and small-scale production 

Auhagen 
Klawki, etc. 

Conclusions concerning the maintenance 

of labourers, livestock and land 
Denmark. 

4. Co-operatives . DAVID, etc. French reactionaries 

Rocquigny 
Holtz 

Buchenberger 

5. Specifics of Russia. 

Together with the peasant bourgeoisie against the 

landowners. 

Together with the urban proletariat against the 

peasant bourgeoisie. 

6. The importance of Social-Democratic agitation among 
the peasants, especially in the epoch of political revival. 
Development of the peasants' class-consciousness, and 
of democratic and Social-Democratic thinking. 



1. Theory of Marxism (a) on the condition, evolution and 
role of the peasantry — and ((3) the Social-Democratic 
programme. Closely bound up. 



70 



V. I. LENIN 



2. Urgency of the peasant question. The agrarian pro- 
grammes of the Social-Democratic parties: the French 
(petty-bourgeois nature. Criticism by Engels), the Ger- 
man (1895. Breslau), the opportunist and revolutionary 
wings of the Russian. (Critics. "David.") (Bulgakov).... 

3. The Russian agrarian programme of the Social-Demo- 
crats, their special distinction from the Narodniks and 
the Socialist-Revolutionaries. 

4. The principles of the Marxist theory concerning the 
peasantry (cf. Development of Capitalism, quota- 
tions from Marx) 

1) the role of large-scale production; 2) the petty- 
bourgeois nature of the peasant; 3) his past and future + 
{Souchon. Add K. Kautsky's The Social Revolution. 

5. Large- and small-scale production in agriculture.... 
From the Manuscript: Hecht, Auhagen; Klawki, 
Baden, German statistics, Stumpfe. 

6. Conclusion: the importance of the maintenance of 
labourers, livestock, land. 

7. Add: Huschke, Haggard, Baudrillart, Lecouteux, Prus- 
sian Inquiry, Bavarian and Hessen Inquiries, Hubach. 

8. Indebtedness. Prussian statistics. 

9. Co-operatives. General approach to the question. Roc- 
quigny, Holtz, Buchenberger, Haggard. Statistical 
data: German and Russian (public lease). Denmark. 

10. Conclusions concerning the West. 

11. Russia's specific features.... On two flanks. 

The peasant bourgeoisie and the rural proletariat. 
Relicts of serfdom and the struggle against the bour- 
geoisie. 

12. Together with the peasant bourgeoisie against 1 Tie in 

the landowners, etc. with 
Together with the urban proletariat against cut-off 

the bourgeoisie J lands 

13. The practical importance of the agrarian question in 
the possibly near future. Exposure of the class anta- 
gonism in the countryside. Democratic and Social- 
Democratic agitation and propaganda. 

Written not before September 1904 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXII 



II 

CRITIQUE OF 
BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 
AND ANALYSIS OF MASSIVE 
AGRARIAN STATISTICS 

1900-1903 



73 



CRITICAL REMARKS 
ON S. BULGAKOV'S BOOK, 
CAPITALISM AND AGRICULTURE, 
VOLS. I AND II, PUBLISHED IN 1900 58 

Bulgakov 

I. "From the author' "essay on the theory (?) of 

agrarian development in 
connection with the general 
development of capitalism" 
— "slavishly dependent on the 

material".... 

1. Chapter I, §1: "Law of diminishing returns".... 

2. Note: "In industry man wields (!?) the forces of 
nature", but in agriculture adapts himself (?) 

13. Note. Marx denies this law, but accepts Ricardo's 
theory of rent, which is based on it (??). (Ill, 
2, 277?) 59 

16. "Increasing difficulties of existence".... 

17. — "An evident truth", which needs merely to be 
stated (?) 

— although agrarian progress temporarily nulli- 
fies the tendency indicated by this law. 

18. The law of diminishing returns is of universal 
significance — the social question, is essen- 
tially bound up with it. 

20. The agrarian crisis is a direct consequence of the 
law of diminishing returns (?) 

21. In agriculture, man is a "slave" to the laws of 
nature, in industry, he is master ("basic distinc- 
tion"). 



74 



V. I. LENIN 



25. Agriculture does not obtain the benefits latent 
in co-operation. 
26-27. Marx's unhappy example (on co-operation).... 
29-30. "Absolutely inapplicable to agriculture" 



^the law <C y ) [Skvortsov] idem 52. 

31. Holds forth on trifles — about machines.... 

32. "Particular case of law of diminishing returns — » 
labour with intensification of agriculture. 

34. "The despotism of nature"... labour « its pro- 
ductivity.... 

35. "The economy of low wages"... "the economy of 
high wages is not applicable in agriculture". 

37. Anyone will do for agriculture: the Russian 
no < than the Englishman. 

38. — ..."even centaurs"... Con II 433 

43. The agricultural machine does not revolu- 
tionise production, does not create confidence 
or precision of work... in the hands of Mother 
Nature.... (Empty phrase!) 

44. The machine cannot convert the worker into its 
adjunct. 

45. "The plough stops at the will of the driver"... 
(sic!) 

46. "The role of the machine is not exceptional 
(distortion and rubbish). 

48. "I am sufficiently free from the Marxist preju- 
dice" that any machine means progress.... Some- 
times agricultural machines are reactionary (!!) 

49. "Naive" comparison between American and 
European agricultural machines. 

50. Development of agriculture tends to narrow 
down the field of application of machinery.... 

51. "It makes no difference from the technical 
standpoint" whether labour is manual or machine. 

51 and 52. The usefulness of the thresher is 
doubt ful(\\).... 
55. A loaf defies telling who produced it ...Mother 
Nature is above such distinctions.... 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



75 



59-60. Small farms also make use of machines: they 
hire them! 

64. In agriculture, there are two elements beyond 
human control: the forces of nature (!!) and the 
social forces (!!) 

67. Backhaus welcomes the division of labour in 

agriculture (Bulgakov — con). 



76. The decisive instance is the theory of cognition 

(in the question of value). 
82. The price of grain is determined not by the last 

application of labour and capital, but by the 

average. 

87. Marx adds nothing to Ricardo (on differential 
rent) — absolute rent 

is a specific instance of differential rent. 
90. "The limited productivity of the land" 
92. "Grain has no value" (!) 
95-96. Marx's unhappy example of the waterfall 
— Marx's fetishism ... (idem 105) 
98. Agricultural capital takes no part in determin- 
ing the rate of profit. 

104. Petitio principii = a b s o I u t e rent.... 

105. Rent is "not a material thing" but a "con c e p t", 

106. The concept of value is an "aerial bridge" (?) 

107. Marx's theory of rent: obscure, contradictory, 
nothing new, etc. 

111. "Pursuing their own path", "by their own efforts" 
("have failed to find a material definition of 
rent") 

113. Rent is not surplus-value — it is paid out of 

n o n - agricultural labour. 

(Bulgakov has forgotten the history of rent).... 
116. Brentano's "remarkable" Agrarpolitik.... 
120. There is no "English rent" in other countries. 
— Agricultural profit is divided between the 

landowner, the farmer and the labourer. 

{defeats himself} 
125. Rent (in a landed estate) — not an English one?? 



76 



V. I. LENIN 



131. "In Britain grain is more expensive than on the 

continent" (?). 
139. "The mystical law of concentration" is "a Marxist 

prejudice" 

..."Hertz's remarkable work".... 

142. "The peasant economy is not going down at all".... 

143. Marx vs. Marx: the dualism of the politician 
and the researcher. 

146-147. Marx "obscures"— according to the law of culture, 
the peasant's requirements are growing.... 

148. Bulgakov himself keeps comparing the peasant 
with capital.... 

154. The peasant economy — "the most profitable 
for society". 



176. Hasbach: "The industry and thrift" of the small 
owner. 

214. "Pre-capitalist overpopulation".... 
237-238. The progress of English agriculture from 1846 
to 1877. 

239. The growth of bigger farms 

..."not the result of conflict between small- and 

large-scale production"??... 
239-240. Once farming is run on capitalist lines, it is 

indisputable that within certain limits the 

large is superior to the small (!!! N.B. !!) 
242-243. Tendency to concentration 1 8 5 1-1861-1871 until 

1880 ... in Britain.... 
246. The scourge of competition strained all the 

productive skill ... but this did not refute the 

law of diminishing returns.... 

251. Under a pastoral economy the capital per area 
unit increases (> capital-intensive).... 

252. Growth in the number of agricultural machines 

1855—1861—1871—1880 

55 236 

1,205 2,160 4,222 60 



252. Reduction in the number of agricultural la- 
bourers ... 1851-1871 (and 1881-1891). 



PLANS AND OUTLINES OF WORKS ON THE AGRARIAN QUESTION 77 



255. What explanation? Overpopulation in 
the preceding period. 

(+ also the consolidation of land holdings \ 
+ also the introduction of farming I 
machines ' 
260. Marx (and H a s b a c h) regards this as con- 
firming the law of concentration, the growth 

of y . (Bulgakov con!) 

262. English population by occupations 1851-1881. 
268. Basic cause of the crisis: the law of diminishing 
returns.... 

273. Per-acre productivity in Britain is not «. 

— Dairy farming, vegetable gardening, etc., 

have been developing. 
279. Rent has suffered most of all (from the crisis).... 
293. The labourer's wages and welfare are growing.... 
301. The agricultural labourers' movement has never 

been socialist. 
303: "Large-scale production in agriculture has no 

positive social consequences" (there is not 

even a rudimentary trade union movement 

among agricultural labourers) (?). 
306. Small farmers < stable 
308-309. Distribution of farms and area in Britain 

1 880-1885-1 895 

311. The crisis most severely affected the small 
farmers. r- 

312. Engels's "fantastic construction,". \ 
313: Many small holders were ruined at the beginnings 

of the 19th century.... \ 
316. The condition of the yeomen is worse than^ 
that of the labourers.... 
318-319. Small holders have suffered >, their condition is 
3 2 0-3 2 1. worse than that of the labourers, it is terribly 
hard.... 

325. Efforts to create a small peasantry. Small Hold- 
ings Act 61 1892. 
328 and 331. Small Holdings Act was not widely applied. 

Small Holdings Act was of no practical impor- 
tance. 



78 



V. I. LENIN 



333. Bulgakov's conclusions: > ruin of small farms 
does not prove (!!!) their unviabili- 
ty.... (!!!) 

338. "The final result": restoration of the peasantry . 
"A verdict against the capitalist organisation 
of agriculture." 



II* 

12. Three-field system prevailed from the 9th to the 

first third of the 19th century. 
17. Insts 62 are diminishing.... 

30. Communist Manifesto gives a wrong picture of 

reality ("prophecy"). 
41. Prussia of the 1840s — general overpopulation. 

44. Progress of German agriculture 1800-1850 
(>than in 1,000 years) ??... "direct outcome of 
the growth of population" and "natural consump- 
tion" 

45. Emancipation of peasants is the basis of capi- 
talist agriculture. 

46. Progress in agriculture is seen mainly on the 
big farms (that is, the exchange farms). 

49. The crisis of the 1830s— capitalist baptism. 

50. Small farms were being ruined.... 

56. Big farms grow faster than small ones. 

57. 1852 and 1858. Distribution of farms and area. 

62. A mass of small farms have been ruined... 
(since 1802) 

63. "Flourishing of the large-scale economy" (dis- 
tillation) 

76. Growth in the soil's productivity and technical 
progress mainly in the large-scale econ- 
omy... ("apparently") 

79. Quarter century of agricultural improvement — 
nil for the agricultural labourers. 

80. ..."fatal feature": lack of economy of 
high wages 

89. Growth of rentals 1849-1869-1898.... 



Vol. II of the summarised book. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



79 



N.B. 



tural 



89-90. The peasant economy was the first to feel the 
brunt of the crisis. It soon turned out that it 
was most destructive for the large-scale economy. 

103. The steam thresher was undoubtedly an evil 
| for the labourers. This is also pointed out by 

Holtz; a Utopian idea: to limit its use. 

10 2. The number of Insts « with an increase of free 
labourers. 

104. Labourers prefer > free status. 

103. "Capitalist reorganisation of the labourers' old 
condition" !! 

105. It is Utopian to set up wage labourers 
with land allotments. Cf. II 255. 

106. Own farm is the ideal of all agricultural labourers. 
106. Reduction in the number of Insts. 1882-1895 

number of labourers with land — 

without " + 
106. Growth in the number of persons (agricu 

labourers) for whom agriculture is a side line.... 
114. Number of agricultural machines in 1882 and 
1895 by types. 
116-117. Number of farms combined with industries... 
(figures interesting but obscure).... 
117. "The crisis has not deprived the economy of the 
possibility of progress." 
115. Large-scale farming is always more capital- 
intensive than small-scale, and therefore, n a- 
t rally gives preference to the mechanical 
factors of production over live labour (!!)... 
((the understating of the superiority of the big 
farms is interesting!)) 

"The reference to the supplanting of labourers 
by machines is quite groundless." 
On the strength of what has been said the condi- 
tion of the big farms is critical (!)... 
To hold its ground, large-scale production must 
show progress: income is derived only by those ! 
farms which are up to the technical standard. 
119. With small farms, the price of land is higher — 
ergo, big farms give a/way to small ones. 



115-116. 
116. 
118. 

! 



80 



V. I. LENIN 



119. Tendency: disintegration of the big farms into 
small ones ... and good luck!! 

120. 1882 and 1895 statistics: supplanting of big farms 
and in rather considerable proportions. (!!?) 

126. Middle peasant farming has grown stronger at the 
expense of the parcels and the big farms (5- 
20 hectares). 

126. The growth of latifundia is a sign of decline (for 
intensiveness must lead to disintegration!!!)... 

127. The increase (?) in farm employees. (?). 
131. The growth of agricultural production, 

especially of the area under root crops and N.B. 
beet root 

132-133. Prussian agriculture is developing, and 

rural population? J + 4. 5% (135) 
133. "Unremitting and even dissipating labour on 

own farms" (N.B.) 
135. Increase in the number of machines not only 

on the big but also on the medium-big farms. 

135. Increase in artificial fertilisers (note). 
135-136. How is progress possible when prices are falling? 

(contrary to normal conditions*).... 

136. Germany owes her current progress above all to 
peasant farming ... (II)... 

138. Policy: to establish a solid peasantry ("The 
way German Social-Democracy must take!!") 
"Possibility of establishing independent farms" .... 

141. There is no denying the beneficial effect of the 
corn tariffs 

143. — "the tariffs cannot evoke unconditional censure". 

144. Holtz is right: labourers (!!) as well as producers. 

145. ... "compromise" is the only way. 

148. The technical progress of large-scale farming 
|| is highly doubtful, its historical role is played 
out (!) 

159. France at the end of the 18th century: "A natural- 
economy overpopulation ." 



* The word "conditions" is not in the MS., and has been inserted according 
to the meaning. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



81 



168. Growth in the urban and industrial population 
of France. 

171. Area under large-scale farming in the 19th century 
was relatively larger than in the 18th.... 

172- 173. Distribution of cotes foncieres* 1884 (2 types 

of data). 

173- 174. "Absolute fantasy" ("stemming from his preju- 

dice") Marx's assertion (1850) concerning the 
indebtedness of the French peasant. 
174. > Growing number of cotes 

Con Souchon, p. 87, since '83 « ** 

176. "The peasantry is divided into a proletariat 

and small holders" (after the revolution). 
179. "Hands are rare" = employers are finding wages 

high (Vicomte d'Avenel). 
181. The market is the power behind progress in 

France. Which class? (? b i g capitalists + 

peasant owners). 
185. In France, there is an especial growth in the 

area under root crops and in the cattle population. 

187. Rural population, 1882 and 1892. 

188. Distribution of farms, 1882 and 1892. 

190. Conclusion: "strengthening of peasant farms" 
and "latifundia degeneration"^.) 

191. "Statistical sages" say » under-l-hectare farms 
owing to increase in workers. Con: in these 
departments > peasant farms. 

193. There are fewer farms than plots. "Of course, 
?(!!) there is no reason to assume that many big 
estates are concentrated in the hands of one 
individual ... there are only 2 l h per cent of them" 

193. In wine-growing < 1 hectare may take up all 
the working time. 

194. Growth in the number of farms with managers 
(patently capitalist) 

Decline in the number of day-labourer farmers. 

195. — refutation of "the fantastic assertion". 



* An individual land holding in a commune in France. — Ed. 
**See p. 111.— Ed. 



82 



V. I. LENIN 



195. Growth in leases {"undoubtedly, small 
ones")? 

196. Reduction in the number of agricultural labour- 
ers. 

207. French farm labourer is being transformed (??) 
into a peasant. 

210. France owes her progress to small-scale farming 
(??) 

211. Despite the progress of French agriculture, the 
rural population has dwindled.... 

212. Agricultural machines (? Answer: "excess popu- 
lation disappearing") 

213. "We have seen that small-scale farming is ahead" 
(!!) 

213 and 215. Eulogy of peasant farming. 

214. There has been no concentration: the third 
estate bought its lands before the revolution.... 
"The expropriation of a section of the peasant- 
ry .... 



217. Population is limited by the means of subsist- 
ence.... 

218. Bulgakov "long" tended to underestimate Mal- 
thus ("invaluable work") 

220. Population increase tends to stimulate the 
transition to new economic forms. 

221. ...Some of the poverty "undoubtedly" springs 
from "absolute overpopulation".... 

221. Overpopulation used to be more common in 

the past (?)... 
223. Overpopulation is not a social but "merely" 

an "economic" theory. 

223. opop = "special problem" (opop = overpopula- 
tion) 

224. "Neo-Malthusianism", deliberate adaptation of 
the birth-rate.... 

225. Diihring (Lange): capacity of territory. 

229. Capitalism is inevitable with a higher density 
of population... (Struve (Lange)) 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



83 



231. "The old political economy." Verelendungs- 
theorie,* etc. 

233. "Emptiness" of Marx's concept of station- 
ary overpopulation.... 
237. "The peasants are not so hard hit by the crisis." 
237. "Rural overpopulation".... 

247. Peasant farming, having least capital at its 
disposal, is naturally less stable (but this has 
nothing to do with the question of its viability). 

249. "Keeping within the territory's capacity" is the 
main negative condition of prosperity. 

251. ...One way... of thinning out the population 
(cf. note). 

253. Artisan-farmers in Germany. 

255. Development of vegetable plots (among industrial 
workers) should be welcomed (!!) Cf. II 105 

259. A kulak section, starvation leases, etc., tend 
to grow on the basis of overpopulation (!!) 

259. N.B.: Who takes over from the ruined peasants? 
The peasants themselves. 

260. "Illusions' on the part of "conservative Marxists" 
that large-scale production is a vehicle of pro- 
gress. 

261. "Boundless lust".... 

263. ..."Depravity rather than increase in the poor 
population" .... 

265. The problem of population is the main difficulty 
N.B.: of collectivism.... 

266. Individual landownership is the supreme com- 
mandment. 

271. The fatal indebtedness of the peasantry is 
a myth.... 

272. Indebtedness. Figures. Not high on peasant 
farms. 

280. Kautsky's "fantasy", "pathetic effort to stretch 
a point" to prove that small farms furnish hired 
labour for big ones. 

(There is no interlocking of big and small farms) 



Theory of impoverishment. — Ed. 



84 



V. I. LENIN 



280. Chronic Marxist prejudice that the peasantry is 

incapable of technical progress. 

[Tables prove nothing] 
282. Progress of peasant farming: The Condition of 

the Peasants 

( I 72, 276\ 
UI 222 / 

282-283. Peasant farming is naturally > labour-intensive 

than large-scale farming.... 
284-285. Peasant co-operatives ("and the big farms, of 

course".) 

287. It is short-sighted and Utopian to regard the 
peasant association as a step forward to socialism 
("Hertz is too closely tied to the opinion of 
his party") "Narrowness" of collectives.... 

288. Socialisation in industry /|\ 
individualism in agriculture. \V 

The "slogan" of democratic development. 

288. The peasant is no less a working man than the 
proletarian.... 

289. Against "peasantophobia".... 

"There is no room in the villages for 
the class struggle" ... "no educational 
influence of this struggle" ... (bis) ... 

290. The peasant has fewer political interests, as 
compared with the townsman.... 



311. Ireland — overpopulation. 

323. Two views of Ireland: the Malthusian, and that 
of agrarian relations. 

324. Bulgakov: some of the evil is the fault of land- 
lordism.... 

331. Middlemen, 63 like the kulaks, are not an inevi- 
table concomitant of peasant farming. 

339. Leasehold interest is of subordinate significance.... 

340. Against Manuilov. 

346. Dispossession of land would have occurred even 
without the landlords, in virtue of overpopulation. 

351. The famine of 1846 was beneficial. There 
is no reason for connecting evictions and emi- 
gration (table proves the opposite). 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



85 



352. "Diminution of the population is the cause of 
Irish progress".... 

358. Growth in potato patches (up to 1 hectare: held 
by rural labourers, among others) in Ireland. 

357. In Ireland there is no reduction of area under 
crop (thanks to peasant farming!) 

359. Farms in Ireland by size (and 3 6 2) (consoli- 
dation). 

360. Capitalist agriculture is devel- 
oping in Ireland. 

361. In time of crisis capitalist agriculture in Ireland 
tends to regress (??) 

1) farmer capital < (! by 0. 0 6%!) 

2) "fragmentary evidence". 
363. "Latifundia degeneration" (!) 

f 30-200 acres — \ 
I 1200 and > acres + J 
365. Marx is "tendentious" about Ireland, gives 
"a chaotic heap of figures".... 
369-370. Progress used to come from capitalist farming, 
and latterly > from the peasants (!!)... 
371. Development of co-operatives in Ireland. 
375. "Welfare is spreading widely among 
the lower orders" (loan and savings 
banks).... 

379. Marx's "tendentious distortion of reality".... 

380. Now there is overpopulation once again. 

384. History of Ireland: importance of the population 
adapting itself to the capacity of the territory.... 



385. Law of diminishing returns is the scourge of 
mankind .... 

386. Marx gave Wakefield an unfair and biased 
assessment. 

393. — in Wakefield's assessment, Marx is an economic 
reactionary . ("The idea of putting capitalism in 
place of the savage does not deserve condemna- 
tion.") 

396. North American population by occupations.... 
398-399. American industry 1850-1860-1870-1880-1890.... 



86 



V. I. LENIN 



412. 

414. 
422-423. 

425. 
429. 

433: 

435-436. 
438. 
445. 

449. 
454. 



(!) 



455. 



456. 
456. 
N.B. 
456. 

457. 



457. 
458. 



Millionaires and paupers have made their appear- 
ance in America. 
Farm area 1850-1890 (») 

Division of labour in American agriculture 

(rapaciousness). 

Crisis in the Eastern States. 

Dairy farming and market gardening in the 
Eastern States. 

"Naivete" about machine farming in North 
America. 

Distribution of farms 

No concentration (con the "overjoyed Marxists"). 

In 1896 I "did not deny" Zusammenbruchs 

theorie*... ("I would have made deletions")... 

The growing prevalence of the internal market. 

Urban civilisation would have come up against 

the law of diminishing returns. 

The grain problem is > terrible than 

the social one. 

Marx is quite wrong about agriculture. 

It is not true that capitalism leads to collectivism 

Solid peasant farming is supplanting 
large-scale farming ("democratic tide"). 
Marx's prediction — "short-sightedness turned to 
ridicule by history", "the self-conceit of scien- 
tific socialism". 

... "over-estimation of social cogni- 
txort 

"Sorcery and fraud" ignoramus. 



Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1932 
in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



Printed from the original 



* The collapse theory.— Ed. 



87 



PLAN OF OBJECTIONS TO BULGAKOV'S BOOK 

Note especially 

a) law of diminishing returns; 

(3) theory of rent; 
- y) refutation of a in Britain, Germany, France, Ireland and 
, America; 

^8) on agricultural machines; 

' s) "solid peasantry" and the agrarian on the question of 
labourers (vegetable plots), machines and taxes; "lati- 

S fundia degeneration" 

II, 126, 190, 363 (con— Hertz 15*) 
(Ad s: cf. II 375) 

. complete break with socialism. II. 287, 266, 288 

— co-operatives 

— class struggle II 289 

— capitalism does not lead to collectivism. II 456 



Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1932 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



See p. 98. —Ed. 



88 



CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE WORKS 
OF S. BULGAKOV AND F. BENSING 

Once again Mr. Bulgakov garbles a quotation in the 
grossest manner in Note 2, on p. 273 of Vol. II. The third 
column of his table does not apply to the "big farms", as he 
declares in the heading, but to all farms in general (Unter- 
suchungen, etc.* S. 573, Anhang. III). 

The last but one column of Mr. Bulgakov's table shows 
not the percentage of indebtedness of the "medium farms" 
(as Mr. Bulgakov says) but the average size of the holding 
(sic!) in small-scale farming. (L. c, Anhang, V, S. 575.) 
The last column shows not the percentage of indebtedness 
of the "small farms", but the average size of holding in 
large-scale farming (ibidem). It is incredible, but a fact 
that Mr. Bulgakov has managed to confuse the tables of the 
original he quotes and has "mixed up" the data on size of 
holdings and the data on the percentage of indebtedness. 

The actual figures: 
843. 10 | 24 643. 2 o | 24 485. 06 | 23 

35.^3% 26.§o% 21. 09% 

(average % of indebtedness) 

Klein- Mittel- Grossbe- 

betrieb** betrieb*** trieb**** 

35-13 — 26-80 — 21.Q9 

* Untersuchungen der wirtschaftlichen Verhdltnisse in 24 Gemeinden 
des Konigreichs Bayern (Study of Economic Conditions in 24 Communities of 
the Bavarian Kingdom). — Ed. 
** Small farms. —Ed. 
*** Medium farms.— Ed. 
**** Large farms.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



89 



Once again: this is how Mr. Bulgakov quotes. 

He refers to p. 77 of Bensing, where Bensing says that 
agricultural machines* have a smaller part to play in 
raising productivity than industrial machines. 

But this is Bensing's introduction to a chapter whose 
result, p. 99, gives a considerable increase in production 
owing to agricultural machines. 

Mr. Bulgakov quotes Bensing. I 32, 48, 44. 

Bensing 4: Marx — Gegner der Maschinen in der Industrie** 

Insert on Bensing in § on machines***: 

1) Bensing's bourgeois attitude to agricultural machines 
(adopted by Bulgakov) is well illustrated by a similar 
attitude to machines in industry. 

(p. 4. Marx — Gegner der Maschinen (cf. 1-2) 
p. 5. Marx "dreht" distorts the beneficial effect of machines, 
p. 11. Marx "allerhand Unheil nachsagt"**** ... to agri- 
cultural machines. 
Bensing's standpoint is that of the bourgeois and the 
entrepreneur 

female and child labour — nil (pp. 13-14)11 

2) Higher productivity of agricultural machines 

a) special inquiry 

(3) a comparison of literary data p. 9 9 (results) 
69 040 = 110 %^ 1 Auction of costs, p. 16 7 (results). 

3) Bulgakov quotes Bensing p. 42, but says nothing 
about this being Bensing's illustration of the importance of 
machines: p. 45. 

Bensing on electricity: pp. 127 and 102. 

N.B. also about Feldbahnen***** pp. 127-29. 

Can Bensing's calculations (pp. 145 et seq.) be used 

to determine ^ and modify it? 

Estate = 310 hectares (240 hectares of fields + 70 hec- 
tares of meadow). 

It is better to take the even not-too-exact figures of Ben- 
sing himself, p. 171. 

* The word "machines" has been inserted by the editors. — Ed. 
** Opponent of machines in industry. — Ed. 
***See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 130-34.— Ed. 
**** Predicts all sorts of misfortunes.— Ed. 
***** Field supply railways.— Ed. 



90 



V. I. LENIN 



Fall I*. 

u*=l+2=3 Lfd Nummer*** 
(pp. 147-48 table) 



Mk 

= 2,400 =2 persons 
+ 9,700 =17 persons 

17,525 =13,294 work- 
ing days 



J 5, 
18, 



242 
052 



men 
women 



} 



m**=10 (Abgaben + 
Lasten) + Reinertrag* * * * = 300 

+ 

425 



v=29,625 
c** = 38,690 



725 Mkm= 725 



1/ 

I ( 



W**= 69,040 



Nr. 



It 19 persons and 

13,294 working 
days 



c = 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 11 + 12 +13 Lfd. 
c here = annual wear and tear of c. 
All c=57,000 + 14,000 + 150,000 + (part of 35,500) 
namely 35,000—29,625) 



} 



Capital: 



Mk 
57,000 
14,000 
150,000 
35,500 

256,500 



4,470 
11,699 
1,464 
6,660 
2,800 
1,000 
6,035 
1,900 
2,662 

38,690 Mk ft 



livestock 
dead stock 
buildings 
working capital 



Fall II. 

Mk " 
1,776 
~ 832. 



943. 



5 J 



Mk 
29,625 
1,446 

28,179 



Mk 
1,776 = 
330 = 

1,446 = 



1,184 working days 
220 



964 



13,294 
964 



*Case One.— Ed. 



12,330 
Hence: 19 persons + 
12,330 working days 



c — constant capital (the cost of the means of production); v — vari- 
able capital (the cost of labour-power); m — surplus-value; W — value of the 
gross product. — Ed. 

*** Serial number. — Ed. 
**** (Taxes + duties) + net income.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



91 



m 300 taxes 

l,368. 5 Reinertrag 



1,668.5 



c 38,690 
~ 502.5 (new machinery) 
— (74.2,010) 



39,192.5 



c = 9,192.5 

v =28,179 
m= 1,668.5 



W= 69,040. 0 



Capital 
57, 000 

16,010 



+ 



150,000 
35,500?*) 

258,510 



14,000 
2,010 

16,010 J 



Fall III A. u_28,179 
92 



v =28,087 



546 Mk = 439 working days 
454 Mk = 304 



92 Mk 135 working days) 





' 12,330 " 


> < 


135 » 




. 12,195 . 



Hence: 1 9 persons + 
12,19 5 working days 



c = 39,192.5 

+ 362.5 ('A X 1,450) 



m = 300 taxes 

4,878 Reinertrag 



39,555 



5,178 



Capital 
57,000 

17,460 

150,000 
35,500 



Mk 
c=39,555 
v=28,087 
m= 5,178 

W=72,820 



Mk 
,16,010 
~ l ~ 1,450 

. 17,460 



*) ? The author assumed the circulating capital = V2 live- 
stock + dead stock 57 + 14 = 71 thousand. 71 2— 35. 5 ; 
consequently, here too he should have taken 57 + 16. 01 = 
73.01- 73.oi^-2 = 36,505 Mk. 



92 



V. I. LENIN 



Fall III B. 

v 28,087 
" 1,482. 5 <{ 

26,604.5 



12,195 
1,242 



1,523 Mk= 1,269 working days 
40. 5 = 27 

.1,482.5 1,242 working days. 



c 39,555 
. + 150 {'/ 4 X 600} 

c= 39,705 
v = 26,604.5 

m= 6,510.5 {300 + 6,210.5} 



10,953 



Hence: 1 9 persons and W= 72,820 
10,953 working days 

Capital. Dead stock 
,17,460 
+ 600 



18,000 



Fall III C. 

u_26,604. 5 
418.5 ^ 

26,186. 0 



JL0,953 
315 



486 Mk= 360 working days 
67. 5 = 45 

418.= = 315 



+ 



39,705 

400 {'/ 4 X 1,200 + 100} 



c = 
v = 
m = 



40,105 
26,186 

6,529 {300 + 6,229} 



10,638 



Hence: 1 9 persons + W= 72,820 
10,638 working days 



Capital. Dead stock 



+ 



18,060 
1,200 

19,260 



Fall III D. 

u_26,186 
2,320.5 

23,865.5 



2,616 Mk = 2,024 working days 
295. 5 Mk= 197 



JO, 638 
" 1,827 

8,811, 



2,320. 5 1,827 



Hence: 1 9 persons + 
8,811 working days 



c= 40,105 



+ 



400 OA X 1,600) 



c= 40,505 
v= 23,865. 5 

m= 8,449. 5 (300 + 8,149. 5 ) 



W= 72,820 

Capital. Dead stock 
19,260 



+ 



1,600 



20,860 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



93 



Fall III E. 



1;= 23,865.5 
" 1,470 

v=22,395. 5 
+ 215. 5 

22,610.5 
8,811 
" 980 



2,616 Mk= 1,400 working days 
" 630 Mk= 420 



—1,470 Mk= 980 working days 
+ 215Mk*)=140 



+ 



40,105 



400 (735 + 126) 



41,366 
215*) 



7,831 



c= 
v= 
m= 

W- 



+ 



140 



7,9 71 Hence: 19 persons + 7, 9 71 days 



= 41,151 
= 22,610. 5 

= 14,476.5 (300+14,176. 5 ) 

■ 78,238 

Capital. 
Dead stock 
20,860 
(Machine hired) 
(Steam thresher) 



Fall III F. 

v= 22,610.5 
" 1,035 . 



21,575.g 

7,971 ' 
" 885 



1,890 Mk= 1,575 working days 
855 690 



.1,035 Mk= 885 working days 



c= 41,151 



+ 



250 ('A X 1,000) 



7,086 J 



c = 
v= 
m= 



Hence: 1 9 persons + 
7,0 8 6 working days 



W= 



41,401 
21,575.5 

14,781.5 (300 + 14,481.5) 

77,758. g 
dead stock 



+ 



20,860 
1,000 



21,860 



*) These 215 Mk (= about l k of 861) I tentatively 
charge to v from the cost of the hired machine (thresh- 
er). [The same thing in Fall IV with the steam plough.] 



94 



V. I. LENIN 



Fall IV. 



c = 38,786 deadstock 21,860 

v =23,465.5 +10,000 Feldbahn 

m = 18,826.5 

31,860 



W= 81,078.o (steam plough hired) 

Hence = 17 persons and 9,09 6 working days 

(introduction of the steam plough (one only) and the Feldbahn) 
changes the quantity of the livestock and the permanent labourers. 

19 persons 
2 (Ochsenmeister 
und Pferdeknecht)* 

— 1,250 Mk Day labourers 

= —700 days (at 1.50 = 1,050 Mk) 

17 persons Hence, minus 2,300 Mk 

Reduction of the livestock: 

— 7 horses 4,200 
—18 oxen 8,100 



-1 2,3 0 0 Mk 



Maintenance of dead stock: 

before = 24,866 Mk 
now = 20,981 Mk 



— 3,885 Mk 

i.e., a reduction of v by 2,300 Mk (2 permanent labourers + 700 days) 
" " " " c " 16 > 185 { +1 3',885} 

Meanwhile, c increases by 1,0 0 0 ('AoX 10,000 Feldbahn)+ 3 / 4 
(on my assumption) of the cost of hiring the Dampfflug, i.e., 
3 / 4 X16,760 = 4,190X3 = 1 2,570, i.e., by 13,570 

Sum total reduction of c is 16,185 — 13,570 = 2,615 
v is reduced by 2,300 Mk, but is, on the other hand, increased by 
V 4 X16, 760 = 4, 190, at 1.5 Mk=c. 2,800 working days 



Labourer tending oxen and labourer tending horses. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



95 



Hence v has increased by 1,8 9 0 Mk {—2 permanent labourers 
+ 2,100 working days. } 



c = 41,401 


v = 21,575.5 


m = 300 


2,615 


+ 1,890 


18,526.5 


c = 38,786 


23,465.5 


18,826.5 


v = 23,465.5 






m= 18,826.5 






W= 81,078.0 







Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1932 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



96 



CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF F. HERTZ'S BOOK, 
THE AGRARIAN QUESTIONS IN 
RELATION TO SOCIALISM* 

Hertz 

VI. Typical approach (lack of historical view, tendency 
to ramble and delve into detail) 

Russian translation 17. 

1. K. Kautsky has "no doubt" impeccably cleared up 
two questions: on rural labourers 

on large-scale agriculture 
Alias — the "peasant question". 

2. According to Hertz, K. Kautsky has two impor- 
tant points: 

{1) in agriculture the interests of wage labourers 
are superior to the interests of the owners. 
2) the peasant is an antagonist of the labourer. 

3. In Austria. 

8V2 million active in agriculture. 
4 'A million rural labourers. 

Hertz believes that 0.8 million rural labourers 
are de facto co-heirs. 

4. "Wortspiel"** by Kautsky: the peasant-entre- 
preneur (cf. Chernov). 

5. The peasant's alternate transformation (in K. 
Kautsky) into a labourer and an entrepreneur. 



* Hertz, F., Die agrarischen Fragen im Verhdltnis zum Sozialismus. 
Wien 1899.— Ed. 

**Word juggling.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



97 



6. Note 15. Hertz also regards holders with 1-2 
! {labourers as Kleinbetrieb or peasant farm. 

6. There is no class antagonism between the labour- 
ers and the small peasants. 

7. Demands must be "immediately attainable" — 
communal ownership of land (K. Kautsky) does 
not meet the requirement. 

9. Not every peasant with subsidiary employment 
is already a proletarian [very stupid]. 
"Help" is not exploitation. 

10. "Definition" of capitalism [forgot all about commod- 
ity production and wage labour!!] 

10. Real definition of capitalism: production under 
the domination of capital (!! that's all!!). 
"Genetic" definition 

10. Note 25. "The economic usefulness of the capitalist 
is still being debated." (Sic!) 

11. "Extremely false" — "die" Agrarfrage (!) 

11. Britain: now "a model for everyone", now "we are 
not Britain" (con — Bernstein). 

12. "Normal" capitalism. (?!) 

The most important thing: the fact that capitalist 
exploitation is not connected with progress to- 
wards capitalist large-scale production. 

12. Agriculture in Russia. Nikolai — on. 

12-13. Large landed estates have not made for progress 
in Russian agriculture? 

13. New peasantry (according to P.S. 64 ) 

14. Also— gilt Nicolai — on (??)* "Nowhere does the 
new mode of production supplant the old." 

14. In Russia, capital does not go on to a juridical 
possession of the means of production, being 
satisfied with > share of the products. 

, (( Socialism will possibly take a similar stand in 
\V respect of capitalism? 

15. Latifundia in Austria are not as common as 
K. Kautsky believes (although there are model 
farms) {and nothing more). 

15. Baudrillart's excellent works. 



Consequently, Nikolai — on remains in force (??). — Ed. 



98 



V. I. LENIN 



16. The Middle Ages bequeathed a great many pecu- 
liarities. K. Kautsky is totally unhistorical in 
his summing-up conclusions [Where? What? When?] 

17. Austrian Alps: in 1867 (idem 1 88 7) the same 
economy as in the Middle Ages. 

18. Colossal growth of debt. 

20. Hertz agrees with Engels that the peasant must be 
rescued from "the vegetative life" of the patriar- 
chal natural economy, but is the money economy 
the best way? (Sic!) 

20-21. Peasants ruined in the Alps, the rich buying up 
peasant lands (for hunting). That is not a case 
of large-scale production displacing the small. 

21. The transforming effect of capitalism in the Alps 
is a complete fiasco! 

21. Hence K. Kautsky is wrong on the educative role 
(!!) of capitalism: parcel leaseholds are designed to 
supplant large-scale production altogether. 

21. Accordingly, the "main task of socialism" is to 
sustain the co-operatives!!! 

22. Concentration of mortgages. Mortgages are not 
always 

1) large farms owe > than small ones. 
24. Small depositors in mortgage banks. Cf. figures. 

f Enormous % of holders! 

I and small % of capital. J 
26. Savings banks in Austria. I'd* 
28. Russian saving banks, 65.5% workers, etc. 

28. This tendency is not one of centralisation but of 
decentralisation (/). 

29. Small artisans and workers are expropriating the 
landowners. Bernstein is quite right about agri- 
culture: a growing number of holders (///). 

31. Engels's mistake about America (displacement 
of small farmers by big ones). 
33-34. In the Eastern United States of America, land 
prices have dropped, but the progress of agricul- 
tural production continues, and K. Kautsky is 
quite wrong. [Cf. Bulgakov II, 435-436]. 



Not deciphered. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



99 



36. + America: absence of parcels allows the > use 
of machines. 

36. The Americans take pride in the fact that they 
do not have such a low - standing peas- 
antry as Europe does. 

39. The modern Grossbetriebe should also be com- 



pared with the modern Kleinbetriebe Chernov 

40. There is a terrible waste of labour-power under 
the parcel economy in Europe: neither the large 
nor the small farms have any "absolute" supe- 
riority. 

43. The fatalism of European peasants. An American 
would take a limitation of credit worthiness as 
an affront. 

44. "dire misery" of the European peasant. 

45. Characteristic headline: "Socialist Attacks 
on Small-Scale Production." 

47-48. Countries according to crop yields: Britain, Bel- 
gium, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, France. 

4 countries with small-scale cropping surpass France! 



in % of farms!! 

49. In large-scale production, the wheat crop is 
only O.49 hectolitre higher. [Yes, at a rough 
estimate!] 

50. Growth in crop yields in France in the 19th cen- 
tury. 

51. Decline in crop yields in Britain. 

52. The growth in the number of agricultural ma- 
chines in France is evidence (51) that the Kleinbetrieb 
does not shun science. 

52. Growth in the number of holders (???) 

53. Rural handicraft industry — none in France (we 
see nothing)?? [Souchon] (Maurice, p. 294). 

53. Distortion. Parcel farms decline in area (on the 
question of the growth of wage labour!!) 

54. Hypocritical over "normal" development. 

55. Kautsky's assertion (about wage labour among 



100 



V. I. LENIN 



small peasants) "total zerfallt"* — data 1862 1882 
1892 (Bulgakov) on the decline in the number of 
day labourers with land. 

55. An exclamation mark over the fact that Gross- 
betrieb is already > 40 hectaresl 

56. K. Kautsky's quotation about the French peas- 
antry has been taken from a reactionary, roman- 
tically-minded lady. Foville has refuted.... 

56-58. B au drill art .... 

59. The consumption of meat in the countryside is 
much < than in the towns (although it is growing 
faster!) 

59. K. Kautsky's assumption (on the consumption of 
meat). 

59. Pauperisierung der franzosischen Bauern kei- 
neswegs s t at t fi n d e t (!!)** 

60. The state of France is the "goal" of all other 
countries (!) 

60. Is there an absolut iiberlegener Betrieb?*** 

61. K. Kautsky should have said: Grossbetrieb may 
be superior to Kleinbetrieb. 

— K. Kautsky does not give any figures for crop 
yields on Grossbetrieb and Kleinbetrieb. 

61. "Feuilleton method" ... (of Kautsky's). 

62. Examines the arguments for Grossbetrieb 
Buildings 

Machines (co-operatives) 
Credit (something he does not examine). 
62-63. David in Sozialistische Monatshefte. 

63. Steam plough: not possible everywhere 

— excellent results on heavy soils 

— but not — on light soils. 

64. Describes in detail where the steam plough cannot 
be used. 

65. It is absurd to say, he adds, that the steam plough 
is better under any conditions (? who? where?). 

65. Threshing in winter: labour (!) cheap (N.B.). 
65. Once again (bis) absolut (!!) (swindler!) 

* Does not hold water. — Ed. 
** There is no pauperisation of the peasants in France at all. — Ed. 
***A farm with absolute superiority.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



101 



65-69. Incomes. 

66. — East-Elbe — and South (I!) Germany: and so on 
(comic) 

67. Higher yields following the introduction of the 
steam plough. 

68. — and in South Germany (Baden) even higher!!! 
68-69. M. Hecht*)— first-rate. 

70-71. Auhagen. (Cf. K. Kautsky.) 

72. Marx. Contrasts cash income with agriculture (!!!) 
K. Kautsky does not even touch upon the question. 

72- 73. Nachklang naturrechtlichen etc.* (communal land- 

ownership). 

73- 74. Chewing on an inexpressible commonplace 

(^T^)** with P raise for Wa S ner (0— 
74. Accordingly, rough method — simply compares 

gross incomes. 
74. Kleinbetrieb uses relatively > labour than Gross- 

betrieb. 

76. The bulk of the peasantry still using the most 
primitive implements. 

76. Abolition of the antithesis between town and 
country (Hauptwunsch alter Utopisten* * * 
and Communist Manifesto), but "we do not be- 
lieve".... 

76-77. The Condition of the Peasants (Kutzleb??) [see 
separate sheet. Cf. Bulgakov II 282] in 
part the same references!! 

79. "First-rate"— Moritz Hecht.... 

80. Stumpfe on peasant livestock farming. 

81. Small holders widely (?) use agricultural ma- 
chines (?) 

82. Grossbetrieb in Europe not > than l h of the area. 
["Cannot treble production'] 



*) Remember to note a propos M. Hecht intensified (and 
age-old) use of urban waste, sewage, etc., as fertiliser. 



* Echo of natural right, etc.— Ed. 
** A formula used by Hertz to denote productivity, where w — value 
of gross product, k — costs of production, and t — time of production. — Ed. 
***The main dream of the old Utopians.— Ed. 



102 



V. I. LENIN 



83. The Grossbetrieb has had the worst of the crisis. 
84-85. Engels is wrong in expecting overseas competition 
to intensify. 

87. Kautsky's "trick" (data on artificial wine). 
87-88. Kautsky's groundless hopes for the industrialisa- 
tion of agriculture: the displacement is insignifi- 
cant. The merger of agriculture with industries 
often goes through the co-operatives. 

88. "IF" Grossbetrieb has "really" combined 
large-scale industry and large-scale agricultural 
production. ("If"!?!) 

88. 1) No concentration. 

2) Growing number of independent holders. 

3) " " of all holders. 

4) Superiority of large-scale over small-scale pro- 
duction is relative. 

89. 5) Two trends in development: 

towards a growth of medium production, 
towards parcel farms. 

6) Parcel leaseholds — the ultimate goal 
of capitalist agriculture. 

7) Capitalism fails to create any economic or 
psychological premises for socialist large-scale 
production. 

8) "The main task of socialism" is to organise 
!! small-scale production through co-operatives. 

89. The small peasant as well as the small tenant is 
not a capitalist, but a worker. 

89-90. Labour rent of the small peasant drops to subsist- 
ence minimum — (!!N.B.) 

90. The price of land — the main cause. 

91. The small holder buys land and pays his debts 
through subsidiary employment 
((work for a wage...!))... 

92. //The contemporary peasant question is a transmut- 
N.B. II ed form of the unemployment problem. (Hertz 
\\ fails to make both ends meet). 

92. For Kautsky the agrarian question is everywhere 
the same. 

93. What will a socialist state do with its employees in 
agriculture? (Very clever!) 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



103 



95. In agriculture, the lever of economic self-interest 
(Selbstinteresse) is indispensable. [Russian trans- 



103. Terrible nonsense on the content of the modern 
right of ownership, etc. 

104. — division on the basis of property [pure scholas- 
ticism!] 

105. — and all of this just to say that it's no use 
waiting for a social revolution. We are in it. 
Property will not be transformed "all at once". 

111. The peasants are "entering socialism": the co- 
operatives.... 

112. Every year, about 1,500 agricultural co-opera- 
tives arise. 

— 1,0 50,000 farmers have united in a purchas- 
ing society ("core" K. Kautsky!!). 
Kautsky is absolutely wrong.... 
In Austria (Hohenbruck) dairy farm co-operatives 
have less than 1 cow per farmer. [Cf. Germany!!] 

112. The co-operatives mostly benefit the small and 
Sic! the smallest holders. 

113. Kautsky's objection "Absolut unhaltbar". — Ko- 
misch* (?) on sale of milk. The peasants receive 
cash. 

113. How "weak" the exploitation of the rural 
labourers by the co-operatives is! Hundreds 
of peasants have 2 or 3 labourers (!?). Associations 
graded: 

118. ...Disqualifizierung minderwertiger Produkte.** 
...regulations by dairy co-operatives on the main- 
tenance of cattle, etc. 

119. The co-operatives have started to build elevators 
with strict sorting of grain. 

120. Wine-makers' co-operatiues: fully Grossbetrieb.... 

121. The poor are saved from ruin: their vineyards are 
!! || bought from them and leased back on 



lation p. 227.] 



! ! ! 




** 



* Absolutely groundless. — Absurd. — Ed. 

* Rejection of low-grade products. — Ed. 



104 



V. I. LENIN 



irtstalmerttsX They open their own wine-cel- 
lars.... 

...what more does Kautsky want?... 

122. Engels also speaks about co-operatives. 

123. The failures of socialist co-operatives. N.B. 

123. Centralised farming is !! "absolutely im- 
possible". 

124. That is for the small ones, whereas the big ones 
! are socialise d\ It pays to use the steam 

plough, etc. 

129. The reactionaries also favour co-operatives. 



PLANS OF OBJECTIONS TO F. HERTZ'S BOOK 



l 



a "Definition of capitalism" (p. 10)! 
(3 Mortgages (pp. 24, 26, 28) 

(Decentralisation) 
Y Engels's mistake about America (p. 31) 
8 Proprietary interests in agriculture (pp. 2, 3). 
The peasant entrepreneur. 
("Wortspiel") (p. 4) (p. 5) and p. 89. 
Kleinbetrieb — and farms with 1-2 hired 
labourers (p. 6, Note 15) 

There is no class antagonism between the Klein- 
betrieb and the hired labourers (p. 6). 
On subsidiary employment (p. 9) 
The big farm has no absolute superiority (p. 40) (p. 60) 
(60-65) 

Threshers: labour cheap in winter: p. 65 
Crop yields in France p. 49. 

The Kleinbetrieb does not shun machines p. 52 (indis- 
criminate figures on France). Cf. 81 (widely??) 
On the sale of milk: p. 113. 
X, M. Hecht 68 and 79 et al. ("first-rate") 

Crop yields in East-Elbe and South Germany (66) 
Auhagen: 70-71. 
# Higher crop yields following the introduction of the 
steam plough (67) 

124: advantages of the steam plough! 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



105 



There are model farms among the latifundia in Aus- 
tria: p. 1 5 (con Bulgakov) 

America: absence of parcels allows greater use of 
Con! machines; no peasantry of such low standing (p. 36) 
and 4 3, 4 4. 

Con. Kleinbetrieb uses relatively more labour (74). 
Most peasants have primitive implements. 
The peasant's labour rent: pp. 8 9-90 (!!) 
Small farmer resorts to collateral employment: 9 1 
cf. 9 2. 

Growth in the number of holders in France 52 (??) 
In France there is no rural industry 53 (??) 
H Distortion on parcel farms (reduction in number) 53. 
Refutation of Kautsky's assertion on wage labour 
among small peasants 55. 

X Hertz on N. — on etc. (p. 12). 
(Cf. Chernov) 

Is the money economy the best way? (p. 20) 
Parcel leaseholds: the goal of capitalism: 
p. 21. 

Industrialisation of production: Kautsky' s 
groundless hopes (87-88) 
a Demands must be immediately attainable — con social 
ownership of land (p. 7) 

p. 10: the economic usefulness of capitalism is still 
being debated. 

p. 14. Perhaps socialism takes the same attitude 
towards capitalism as Russian capitalism does to the 
patriarchal economy. 



Only a greater share! 



Nachklang naturrechtlichen views: pp. 72-73. 
Abolition of the antithesis between town and country: 
In agriculture, the lever of self-interest is indispen- 
sable: 95. 

What socialism will do with the employees: 93. 
On social revolution: 105. 

123: Centralised farming is absolutely impos- 
sible (!!) 



106 



V. I. LENIN 



x "The main task of socialism" is to sustain the co-opera- 
tives (p. 21) and p. 89. 

124: Co-operatives for the small ones, U 
and socialisation for the big ones. 
Wine-growers' co-operatives 120 
Co-operatives: "entering" socialism (111). 
Number of members in co-operatives (112) 
Dairy co-operatives (112) 
To x Engels on co-operatives 
distortion 12 2. 

2 

a "theory" 

(3 mortgages 

Y Engels on America 

8 on the peasantry and versus the proletariat 
s large- and small-scale production 
t, Hecht, Auhagen, etc. 
f> admission of superiority of the large 
i admission of overwork in Kleinbetrieb 
x Hertz on French data 
X Hertz and Narodism 

a — attitude to socialism 
x — co-operatives 

Written in June-September 1901 



First published in 1932 
in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



Printed from the original 



107 



ANALYSIS OF DATA 
FROM 0. PRINGSHEIM'S ARTICLE, 
"AGRICULTURAL MANUFACTURE AND ELECTRIFIED 

AGRICULTURE" 65 

Dr. Otto Pringsheim (in Breslau), "Landwirtschaftliche 
Manufaktur und elektrische Landwirtschaft". [Braun's 
Archiv, XV (1900), S. 406-418.] 

The author starts by pointing out that he will try to 
characterise "the forms which agricultural production 
assumes in the capitalist epoch" (406). Until now "the 
question of agrarian morphology" has hardly been dealt 
with. (Farms were classified into large and small in a 
stereotyped way, superficially, only by the area under cul- 
tivation— 407.) 

Is there not in agriculture an analogy with the capitalist 
household industry (the middle link between the handicrafts 
and large-scale industry)? — In Dutch tobacco-growing, in 
beetroot production (dependence on the sugar refineries, 
control over their crops, etc. — 408). (Consequently: much 
weaker than in industry — 409.) 

Let us take a look at a typical specimen of the modern 
large-scale agricultural enterprise: an East-Elbe estate of 
200-400 hectares 

the prevalence of isolated manual labour 
and simple co-operation 
small division of labour 

not permanent (reapers and binders) 
permanent (in stock raising). 



108 



V. I. LENIN 



Machines*) are used sporadically (as in the industrial 
manufacture. Cf. Das Kapital, I 3 , 3 3 5 , 3 4 9 66 p. 410. 
No system of machines (410). 

Modern large-scale agricultural production should be 
compared with the manufacture (in the Marxian sense) 
(410). 

Marketing in agriculture is not so much on 
a world as on a local scale (411). And the size of the 
N.B. unit is not big: very few with a turnover of 100,000 
marks, whereas in industry this was surpassed long 
ago (411). 

[This indication is very important!] The exception proves 
the rule [Benkendorf's estate in Saxony, 2,626 hectares, of 
which 375 is cultivated by steam plough; livestock — 123 
draught horses + 70 pairs of oxen + 300 milch cows + 
100 fattened bull-calves + 3,600 fattened lambs. A sugar 
refinery and a distillery, etc., 13 employees, etc. Outlays 
Vh-2 million marks a year. — Bockelmann in Atzendorf: 
3,320 hectares, own steam plough + (99 horses, 610 oxen), 
sugar refinery, etc.: Mitteilungen der deutschen Landwirt- 
schaftsgesellschaft. 1899, Stuck 17**)].**** 

On the whole, the nature of the large-scale agricultural 
enterprise is not like that in industry, and it will be easily 
proved that the middle peasants are not below this level. 

But while the Davids and Hertzes, the Oppenheimers and 
Weisengriins predicted the early end of large-scale agricul- 
tural production, there started a technical revolution which 
should apparently lead to a strengthening of the positions 
of large-scale agricultural production and take it to a higher 
stage of development... 412. 

*) Backhaus, Agrarstatistische Untersuchungen iiber den 
preussischen Osten im Vergleich zum Western ,* 1898. F. Ben- 
sing, Der Einfluss der landwirtschaftlichen Maschinen auf 
Volks- und Privatwirtschaft** 1898. 

**) On Benkendorf also see Thiel's Landwirtschaftliche 
Jahrbiicher, 1887 (16. Jahrgang), S. 981.*** 

* A Comparative Agrarian Statistical Study of East and West Prus- 
sia. — Ed. 

** The Influence of Agricultural Machinery on the National and Private 
Economy. — Ed. 

*** Agricultural Yearbooks, 1887, 16th year of publication, p. 981.— Ed. 
**** Material of the German Agricultural Society, 1899, Part 17.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



109 



Electrical Machines 



advantages of electrical 

machines 

— for milking 

— farm supply railways 

— threshers 

— plough, etc., etc. 

This means opening up 
the possibility of the ma- 
chine system in agricul- ■ 
ture.... What could not be 
achieved by steam power 
will certainly be achieved 
by electrical machines, 
namely, the advancement of 
agriculture from the old 
manufacture stage to mo- 
dern large-scale production 
(414).* 



Sinell, Jahrbuch der Deut- 
schen Landwirtschaftsge- 
sellschaft, Band 14. 

Benno Martiny, Arbeiten 
der deutschen Landwirt- 
schaftsgesellschaft , Heft 
37. 

Technische Rundschau, 
1899, No. 43 (Electrical 
supply tracks). 

Adolf Seufferheld, Die An- 
wendung der Elektrizitat 
im landwirtschaftlichen 
Betriebe, aus eigener Er- 
fahrung mitgeteilt, Stutt- 
gart 1899. 

P. Mack, Der Aufschwung 
u.s.w. 1900** 



Electricity will sharpen the competition between the big 
and small farms (the co-operatives will not make up for the 
advantages of large-scale production).... Writers who, like 
Hertz, in treating of competition between small- and large- 
scale production in agriculture ignored electrical engineer- 
ing, must start their investigation all over again (415).*** 
Growing industrialisation of the countryside. Coalescence 
of industry and agriculture (cf. Mack): 
— countryside drawing closer to town 
— introduction of more educated workers (416) 
— night work (examples in Bohemia and Saxony) (p. 417). 
A reference to Russia in note (p. 417)— V. Ilyin, p. 166**** 
— introduction of female and child labour, etc. 
"The prospects for agriculture in the 20th century are 
truly brilliant" (417). Max Delbriick, "Die deutsche Land- 

* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. lAA.—Ed. 
** Sinell, Yearbook of the German Agricultural Society, Vol. 14; Benno 
Martiny, Transactions of the German Agricultural Society, Part 37; Technical 
Survey; Adolph Seufferheld, Report from Personal Experience on the Use of Elec- 
tricity in Agricultural Production; P. Mack, Boosting, etc. — Ed. 
*** See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 142.— Ed. 
**** Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 235. -Ed. 



110 



V. I. LENIN 



wirtschaft an der Jahrhundertswende" (Preussische Jahrbii- 
cher, 1900, Februar)* predicts a doubling of crop yields 
in grain production, a trebling of potato crops, and an 
eightfold increase in the whole of production by the end of 
the 20th century over the beginning of the 19th century. 

Lemstrom's study of the influence of electricity on the 
growth of plants also opens up unexpected prospects (418). 

Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



* Max Delbriick, "German Agriculture at the Turn of the Century" 
(Prussian Yearbooks, 1900, February). — Ed. 



Ill 



CRITICAL REMARKS ON E. DAVID'S ARTICLE, 
"THE PEASANT BARBARIANS" 

David's short article, "Bauerliche Barbaren' (Sozialistische 
Monatshefte, 1899, No. 2, III. Jahrgang, S. 62-71) is a typical 
example of the outrageous approach to the small peasant 
concept. David gives a description according to Hecht 
(Moritz Hecht, Three Villages in the Hard of Baden, Leipzig, 
1895) of three villages near Karlsruhe, lying within 4 to 
14 kilometres. In one village (Hagsfeld) the majority are 
workers who go to work in Karlsruhe, in the second (Blan- 
kenloch), they are a small minority, and in the third (Fried- 
richsthal), all are farmers. 

They have holdings of 1 to 3 hectares*) (only one has 9 
hectares, and 18—4 to 6 hectares), and lease from l k to 
1 hectare. Twenty-nine are landless. 
Price of hectare 

4. 2 -4. 4 thousand marks. Grow tobacco, 45 % of farmland 

(area under crop) in Friedrich- 
sthal (1,140 souls) 
4. 8 -5.o " " Raise corn (wheat), 47% of farm- 

land (area under crop) in Blanken- 
loch (1,684 souls) 
9.-10. " " Grow potatoes. 42 % of farmland 

(p. 67) (area under crop) in Hagsfeld. 



*) "Holdings everywhere are small and dwarf peasant 
farms": 

Hagsfeld "average" 2. 0 hectares 

Blankenloch " 2. 5 

Friedrichsthal " l.„ " (!!) 



112 



V. I. LENIN 



Income (from tobacco) — up to 1,800 marks (gross, 690 net) 
per hectare.*) Crop yields are everywhere much higher 
than the average for Germany (p. 67) 

Potatoes: 150-160 double centners per hectare (87. g for German Reich) 
Rye and 

wheat: 20-23 " " " " (10-13 " " " ) 

Hay: 50-60 " " " " (28. 6 " " " ) 

Living standard is high (clothes, food, dwellings, etc.), 
for instance, consumption of sugar in the three villages 
is 17 kg per head (only 8.2 kg for German Reich!), etc. 

David is jubilant: There's your "backward small peas- 
ants!" he says about these "still really and truly small 
holders" (p. 66). This only shows him up as a real and true 
petty bourgeois, because his is a most eloquent example of 
the bourgeois village, a visual example of the worthlessness 
of area statistics. These are nothing but rich tobacco-plant- 
ers and suburban peasants — and suburban workers with 
plots of land! 

From the outset, E. David attacks the theory of under- 
consumption and overwork (62) ("superhuman work and 
inhuman way of life"). 

And, ridiculing orthodox Marxism, etc. (63), E. David 
says: 

"I should subsequently like to contrast the backward 
small peasant described by Kautsky with a portrait of the 
modern small peasant. In fact, such a type does exist; but 
he is so different, as man and farmer, from the semi-barbar- 
ian beggar we find in Kautsky's book, that anyone wishing 
to engage in practical land agitation will find it very useful 
to have a closer look at him as well" (63). 

Before that E. David "retells" Kautsky as follows: Agri- 
culture has become "one of the most revolutionary, if not 
the most revolutionary of modern industries", but small 
peasant farming is "the most irrational economy one can 
imagine". (No reference to Agrarfrage). 



*) 1,825.60 marks per hectare. And this holder has 2. 5 hec- 
tares plus milch cows and pigs (dairy farm near Karlsruhe) 
(p. 67). "Let the reader calculate the total income of this (!!) 
'backward small peasant"' (67). 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



113 



"Comrade Kautsky starts from the premise that small 
peasant farming cannot be rational at all; that the successes 
of agricultural science and engineering virtually do not 
exist for it at all. Modern machinery, chemical fertilisers, 
soil improvement, rational crop rotation, improvement 
of seed and livestock, organisation of marketing and credit — 
all of this he imagines to be the privilege of capitalist large- 
scale agriculture from whose table, it is true, some small 
crumbs do fall to the small peasants, but these are quite 
insufficient to raise small farming to the economic and 
technical productivity which is characteristic of large- 
scale farming" (63). 

(A specimen of "vulgarising" Marxism!) 

Statistics of income from crops: in the south-western 
states (small farming) it is higher than in East Prussia 
(large-scale farming). 

That the soil is better in the south-west is only a part 
of the explanation. 

Even if the rye ana hay crops in Saxony are lower than 
in Hessen (the wheat crop is higher), this goes best to show 
how backward the concept of the general backwardness 
of peasant farming is (64). 

Of course, machines are not as (not equally) accessible 
to small farming, but 

1) machines do not play such a role in agriculture 

2) the most important machines are also "accessible" 
(zuganglich) to small farming. 

"Concerning steam and other threshing machines this is 
admitted even by Kautsky; their application is becoming 
ever more widespread on the small farms as well. But 
Kautsky is wrong when he says that 'apart from the thresher, 
the use of machinery in small farming is hardly in evidence'. 

"Of the machines included in the count during the 1895 
farm census, there is above all the seed drill, which is 
accessible to all, at any rate, to farms of 5 to 20 hectares, 
!! and smaller farms as well, insofar as they have an even 
area under crop. It is true that the percentage of small farms 
already using it is still insignificant, but if we look at the 
high, absolute figures and the progress between 1882 and 



114 



V. I. LENIN 



1895, we shall have a positive answer to the question of 
whether or not they can be used everywhere. This is borne 
out by the following survey. Seeders were used by*: 

Number of farms: 
1882 1895 
Under 2 ha 4,807 14,949 (214) + 10,142 



2-5 4,760 13,639 (551) 8,879 

5-20 15,980 52,003 (3,252) 36,023 

25,547 80,591 (4,017) 55,044 

20-100 22,975 61,943 (12,091) 38,968 

> 100 15,320 26,931 (12,565) 11,611 (p. 65) 



"The assertion that apart from the thresher, the use of 
machinery in small farming is hardly in evidence, is refuted 
by these figures, for the seed drill, at any rate." 

and in the note there is a reference to The Condition of 
the Peasants, I, 106, to the effect that in the Weimar district, 
the "seed drill is common among the richer (!!) and is already 
making its way into the 30- or 40-acre farms". 

/ Let's note that 28. 5 ha = 100 Weimar acres \ 
V about 9. 5 ha = 30-40 " " ) 

"Nor can it be said that the reaper is absolutely beyond 
the reach of small farming. In 1895, it was already in use on 
6,746 farms of 5 to 20 ha" (p. 65). 

Then comes a quotation from a Frankfort-on-the Main 
factory catalogue: 20-25-30-60 pfennigs for l k day's use of 
a machine: seeder (60 pfennigs), harrow (25 pfennigs), etc. 

"But the other achievements of modern agriculture have 
penetrated into small peasant farming to a much greater 
extent than the machines. To give a visual picture of this 
I shall quote in somewhat greater detail one of the most 
fundamental (!!!) and interesting (!) monographs on the 
condition of the peasantry which have appeared in the 
recent period" ... Hecht (66)** 
in these three villages: 

"Holdings everywhere are small and dwarf peasant farms" 
(E. David's italics). 

* Under the 1882 census, the count only dealt with seeders; and in 1895 
broadcast sowers and seed drills were classified under separate heads. Con- 
sequently, the 1882 figures should be compared with the total number of 
machines of both types in 1895; the relatively smaller number of farms using 
the broadcast sowers, the less important type, is given in brackets after the 
total figure (E. David's note). 
** See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 160.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



115 



"What has been said must cast doubt on Kautsky's asser- 
tion which is presented to us as a generally recognised 
truth: 'that in contrast to large-scale farming peasant 
farming rests not on a higher productivity but on more modest 
requirements'" (68). 

For all Za&owr-intensive crops, small farming is undoubtedly 
more rational (68). 

Good dwellings, "clean room" ... carpets, lamps, photo- 
graphs, mirrors, gold rings, postage stamps, etc. (69) 

"Our Hard peasants are already at the pure money eco- ( \ 
nomy stage and — oh, miracle! — this has not ruined them, v 
In defiance of Kautsky's prophecies! In fact, they are 
having it very well indeed, and any cash surplus — and / 
they often have one — is instantly deposited in savings I ! 
banks to earn interest" (68). ^ 

"I have quoted this study, based as it is on serious data, 
at such length because it gives an excellent characteristic of 
every aspect of the most modern type of West-German small 
peasantry' (70) ... that even the urban reader will under- 
stand.... 

"For it should not be imagined that Hecht's facts are 
exceptional cases, without any importance for the general 
condition and the future of small-scale farming" (70) 

In Mombach (near Mainz), where E. David lives, the 
peasants are no worse off than the Hard peasants. They 
raise lettuce, asparagus, peas, etc. 

E. David objects to Kautsky's taking "a few pictures of 
poverty" from the Rhon mountains, Spessart, upper Taunus, 
etc., and drawing general conclusions (71). His, David's, 
picture will help to find a general correct average (71) (my 
italics). 

The condition of the peasants is now on the whole better 
than before. E. David quotes The Condition of the Peasants, 
I, 270 — (last paragraph, first sentence: "That welfare in gen- 
eral" up to "proves") — and puts it in italics. 

(David says not a word about hired labour among 
the Hard peasants. Not a word either about 
overwork (after other work).) 

Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1932 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



116 



ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM M. HECHT'S BOOK, 
THREE VILLAGES IN THE HARD 
OF BADEN 67 

Hecht 

1. 4-14 kilometres from Karlsruhe. 



workers 




1,273 inhabitants 

1,684 

1,140 




Friedrichsthal 



Total= 4,097 



3. Lumbering in winter. 
7. Density of population 




(Friedrichs-) (Blanken- 
thal) loch) 

4-5 2. 8 



Total land 



Friedrichsthal 

Hagsfeld 

Blankenloch 



258 hectares 

397 

736 



Total = l,391 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



117 



Distribution 
of land: 



p. 7: Farm 

consists 
of 5-7 per- 
sons. 



9 
6-8 
5 
4 
2 

under 2 



Friedrichs- 


Hags- 


Blan- 


thal 


feld 


kenloch 


hectares — 


— 


1 


5) 


6 


— 


5) 


3 


2 


5) 


6 


4 


43% 


? 


55% 


the rest 






landless — 8 


14 


7 



Freedom of division 

8. Additional lease of V2-I hectare. 

9. Heavy exodus (to America) in the 1830s and 1850s 

10. Today the formation of a middle estate 

(in place of the former poor) 

11. Extensive and subsistence farming — 18th century. 

to the towns 
Poverty of the population, emigration and 

to America 



12. Hags f eld — into an industrial township 

Blankenloch and Friedrichsthal — specialisation of 
agriculture, money economy. The farmer has become 
merchant and entrepreneur. 

15. In Hagsfeld, farming is a side line. 

15- 16. — Only nine families are engaged in farming alone. 

— The Hagsfeld peasant has become a factory worker. 
The wives farm: they even have their linen washed 
in town. 

16- 17. The price of land Hagsfeld 4. 2 -4. 4 thousand 

marks 

cf. Baden Blankenloch 4. 8 -5 

2 thousand marks Friedrichsthal 9 -10 

17. Only specialisation gives an effectively high income. 

Potatoes for the aristocratic board. 

Seed potatoes." 
17. "Virtuosity" in developing potato grades 



118 



V. I. LENIN 



18. Potatoes 120 double centners X 4 = 480 marks per 

hectare 

Carrots 1,300 
Tobacco (takes a lot of hands) 
18. Child labour in planting (stecken!) potatoes 



(19) 220-230 planters of tobacco (a total of about 100 
hectares) 

20. Friedrichsthal income from tobacco = 147,473 marks 
a year 

23. Friedrichsthal leases meadows and buys hay 

24. The growth of dairy farming. 

24. Everyone sells 2-3 litres of milk, rich families — 
10-20 litres 

In Hagsfeld milk is sold, and butter (partly mar- 
garine) bought instead 

25. Creamery in Friedrichsthal, "speculative mode of 
business", its precarious dependence on the cattle- 
dealers 

26. Friedrichsthal — 17,200 marks a year from the sale 
of pigs. 

27. Growth in the number of goats in Hagsfeld: 
disintegration of the peasant estate. 

28- 29. Backwardness of Blankenloch with its more 

natural economy. 

29- 30. Reason: much land. 

!! {The community facilitates the struggle for 
existence 

30. Although the disintegration of the community 
pays from the standpoint of production, it 
is socially wasteful — maintenance of workers 
(especially with Blankenloc h's tran- ^ g 
sition from agriculture to industry). 

30. The people of Friedrichsthal carry manure from 
Karlsruhe (20-30 cartloads). 



31. There is no day-labourer category: most peasants 
do without labourers 
few "request" help 

payment increases where town is near 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



119 



32-33. Complete collapse of handicrafts. 

35. The majority in Hagsfeld are factory workers 

(300-350), most of them walking the 3V2 kilometres 
(only 100 ride) 

f Hagsfeld 350 

factory workers -j Blankenloch 103 

I Friedrichsthal 10-12 



35. Factory working day = 10 hours 

36. Factory working women sometimes take work 
home 

38. Celebration of the fact that the Hagsfeld worker 
has a patch of land: "more important sense" 
of property 

Utilisation of spare time 
4 a.m. — at 7 a.m. to the factory 
after 7 p.m. — I-IV2 more 

39. The worker has better nutrition, relaxes from fac- 
tory work. The women stay at home — better from 
the moral standpoint. 

40. Hecht is clearly making fun of the socialists 
"capitalists", "serfdom". 

40. House owners socially higher 

41. Social "poetry of own house". 

58-59. The growth of Karlsruhe, market, etc. 

6 2. It is a sad fact that in the sale of tobacco the well- 
to-do farmers sometimes cheat the poor. 

63. In Blankenloch and Hagsfeld grain is 
sold in autumn and bought in spring. 

65. The purchase of manure and liquid manure. 

78. The richer families (3-4 hectares) have meat 5-6 times 
a week 

the poorer — 3-4 times 

a handful — only on Sundays. 

79. The Hagsfeld worker — wife takes dinner to town 

(150 out of 300 get their dinner from home, 150 
have theirs in eating-houses)... 
79 Poor women ... carry dinner to the factory.... 



79-80. Cookery courses are read annually at Blankenloch 
and Friedrichsthal (on the initiative of her royal 



120 



V. I. LENIN 



I 

80 

! 



highness the grand duchess) ... an undertaking 
equal in importance perhaps to the founding of 
a consumers' co-operative or a savings bank. 
(That's Dr. Hecht, that's him all over!) 

90. The Hagsfeld man... is no longer a peasant, he 
is a townsman. 

91. Strict religious convictions — Social-Democrats are 
ignored, except possibly by factory men, but only 
the 20-30-year olds. 

92-93. There is no "social gulf" between the rich and the 
! poor. The "master" peasant (with 3-4 hectares) is 
on thee-and-thou terms with the labouring man and 
93 woman, ana calls them by their first names. — 
! They "sir" him, but eat at the same table: "patri- 
archal relations". 
Consequently, in "the three villages" 
On the one hand, rich petty bourgeois, tobacco-plant- 
ers, dairy farmers, etc. (virtuosi raising special grades of 
potatoes, etc.). 

Example of paying nature of tobacco-growing. 
Wage labour in general. (Master and labourer) 
Swindling of the small by the big. 



The rich sell 10-20 litres of milk 

" eat meat 5-6 times a week 



The poor 2-3 litres 

" 3-4 and 
a very few on Sun- 
days only. 



On the other hand. About one-half the total 
population are factory workers (4,000 inhabitants — about 
1,000 working, of whom 464 are factory workers). Of the 
factory workers, the greater part walk. Poor women carry 
dinners to the factory. 

Under-consumption (margarine) 
Overwork (working at home for the manu- 
facturers; work morning and night) 
Growth in the number of goats. 
Sale of grain in autumn and purchase in 
spring. 

"Fiercely industrious" (and example) 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



121 



Factory Number of 

workers families 

roughly 

350 Hagsfeld 1,273-5-6= 212 

103 Blankenloch 1,684 -r- 6 = 281 
11 Friedrichsthal 1,140 -5- 6 = 190 



hectares 



1- 



6 with 7 = 42 roughly 
5 with 5 = 25 roughly 
10 with 4 = 40 roughly 
22 116 
29 — 0 



464 4,097-^6=683 

V 2 = 341 
% = 273 
464 factory workers 

Hagsfeld 
212 

9 (without side line) 
203 — 3 50 factory workers 
about 200 —350 about 
200 1 

350 460 

460X200 _ 263 families of W orkers in all 3 villages* +29 land- 
350 
less = 292 



A total of about 700 families 
of whom factory workers — a bout 300 



I 25 — 30% 
II 25 — 30% 
III 50 — 40% 

100 100 

For fertilisers 

hectares marks per hectare 

Friedrichsthal . . 258 28,000 108 28,000-^258=108 

Hagsfeld .... 397 12,000 30 
Blankenloch ... 736 8,000 11 



* The words "of workers in all 3 villages" have been inserted according 
to the meaning. — Ed. 



122 



V. I. LENIN 



Inha- 
bit- 
ants 

1,140 



1,684 



Distribution of crop area, in % 
Total 



Fried- 
richsthal 



Blanken- 
loch 



land 
ha 

258 



736 



1,273 Hagsfeld 397 



Cat- 
tle 

435 



634 



225 



Pota- To- r . 
toes bacco 

30% 45% 18% 



Pigs 
497 



about 
100 ha p. 19 



17% 



(51.48") ha) 
10. 4 % 47% || 445 



(40 ha?) 



about 
236 ha 



42% 



0.«% - 



220 



Goats 



93 



Horses 
40 

96 

35 



4,097 



Crop yields are much higher in Friedrichsthal (p. 29 
Hecht). 

To sum up: 

l U rich and well-to-do 
peasants 

'A middle ones (those of Blankenloch — more backward 
economy, etc.) 

patches (p.t.o. 



only the Friedrichsthal people 
are well-to-do — and they are about l k 



l li factory workers 
calculation) 



Friedrichsthal 
Blankenloch . 
Hagsfeld . . 



Friedrichsthal: 
100 ha of tobacco 
about 50 ha of grain 
about 65 ha of potatoes 
(% of tobacco) 



with 



for rough 



''lies' ^ ost °f ^ an & 

r0U ly k ~ ha '000 '000 
° marks marks 


Cattle in terms 
of horned 

1 bull=l horse 
= 4 pigs = 
10 goats 


190 
281 
212 


258 X 9. 5 =2,451 
736 X 4.9 = 3,606 
397 X 4.3= 1,707 


599 
842 
324 


683 




7,764 


1,765 


45% 
18% 
30% 




258.0-1.8 = 
736.0-2.5= 
397 -=-2 = 


143 69 

294 

196 


93% 




143 + 294 + 196 = 


= 633 families 



*) 143 Morgen = 51. 48 ha. (Hecht, 28) 258X 18 /ioo = 46. 44 ha 6 
hence 678 Morgen= consequently 236. 6 ha. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



123 



"The little man" (in Friedrichsthal) obtains 30 kilo- 
grammes of tobacco from x k Morgen (9 ares) — "the rich one" 
(with 3-3 l h hectares) — only 25 kilogrammes. The poor one 
is more diligent (p. 71). 

Twenty-four years ago one had 110 ares. Now he has 
3V2 hectares — made additional purchases. And all that ! 
due only to being "fiercely industrious" (71). "There are 
many more such examples." 

Then there is also the "sober marriage policy". 

The well-known peasant saying: "We work not so much 
for our mouth as for our pockets" (71). 

Hagsfeld — the cause of progress is not only the entry into 
market relations, not only the free division of land, but 
also education in the spirit of a higher morality, endeavour 
and self-help (71). 

The virtues: diligence, thrift, temperance, which now 
mark the Hard peasant, are not innate but acquired (72). 

And Hecht extols education by state, church, and school: 
in the sweat of your face shall you eat bread! Why does one 
get 4 centners of tobacco from 9 ares, and the other, 1? 
Why does one raise tobacco and the other rye? Lasiness. 
Why do neighbours (say, in the Bruchsal district) live 
worse, despite similar market conditions? — In our opinion 
the major cause of the better economic condition of our 
3 villages is the more pronounced existence and development 
of moral factors. But the education of the Hard peasant 
is revealed not only in his greater industry, hardiness, the 
truly remarkable thrift and temperance (73) — but also 
in self-help. 

pota- Car- Tobacco cereals 



Sale: 


toes 
annually 


rots 


annu- 
ally 


annu- 
ally 


Milk 


Pigs 


Tobacco 


Fried- 
richs- 
thal 










750 
litres 
a week 


17,200 
marks 
a year 


147,473 
marks 
a year 


Blanken- 
loch 


4,000 
double 
cent- 
ners 


1,750 
double 
cent- 
ners 


3,500 
double 
cent- 
ners 


500 
double 
cent- 
ners 


4,700 


?(p. 26) 


? 


Hagsfeld _ 










1,400 


? 





124 



V. I. LENIN 



(marks) 
Blankenloch 



5,000 



3,000 



+ 



Purchase Friedrichsthal 

Manure 25,000 

Liquid manure — 

Artificial fertilisers 3,000 

- 

Concentrated feed 

Hay 10,000 

Grain 23,100 

v , 

Sugar 45-50 thousand marks 

Coffee 60,000 marks 



Hags f eld 
3,000 



8,000 
1,000 



40,000 
20,000 
12,510 



10,000 



ha 

100 tobacco 
? 65 potatoes 

(2/ 3 of 

tobacco 
30% and 
? 50 grain 50 



100 ha 

65 ha about 600 marks per ha 
(p. 18 : 150 double centners 
at 4 marks) 

45%) 

ha at 26 double centners (p. 22) 



marks 
147,473 
about 36,000 



1,300 double 
centners 



? 15 beetroot about 15 ha 
230 at 1,200 (cf. p. 18) 



p. 22 = 6% 
= Vv of 100 

= 45% 



= 18,000 = about 18,000 



milk 750 litres X 50 = 37,500 at 15 pfennigs 
(p. 64) 

Pigs 



about 5,625 
17,200 
224,298 



How big is the average gross income of a Friedrichs- 
thal man? 1. 8 ha. 

224,000 marks is, of course, not all; taking the round 
figure of 258,000 marks, this gives 1,000 marks per hectare 
and 1,800 marks for 1. 8 hectares. 

The peasant of the 18th century, with his eight to ten 
hectares of land, was a peasant and a manual labourer; 
the dwarf peasant of the 19th century, with his one or two 
hectares of land, is a brainworker, an entrepreneur, and 
a merchant (p. 69).* 



* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 163.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



125 



Concluding words: The dwarf peasant and the factory 
worker have both raised themselves to the position of the 
middle class.... "The three villages in the Hard of Baden" 
now belong to one great, broad middle class (94).* 



Amen! 



Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



Ibid., p. 167.— Ed. 



126 



ANALYSIS OF MATERIAL 
FROM H. AUHAGEN'S ARTICLE, 
"ON LARGE- AND SMALL-SCALE PRODUCTION 
IN AGRICULTURE" 70 

Hubert A u h a g e n , "Ueber Gross- und Kleinbetrieb 
in der Landwirtschaft" (T h i e I s Jahrbiicher, Band 
25, Jahrgang 1896. S. 1-55). 



Auhagen is 
definitely 
for small 
farming 



The village of Clauen (Hannover 
province) (Peine District) 



I — 4. 62 5 ha f 1001 f 100 I JExcellent\ 
II — 26.50 " 1573J ^ 625 V I exampleW J 
I drainage J 



The author says that he tried to find a village with a 
"possibly uniform soil" (p. 1), but does not give any soil 
classification for I and II. 

Both farms are among the best in the area (p. 1). 

Cultivation of land — see separate sheet* 

In I, cows are used in ploughing and on working days (105) 
receive more feed. On hot summer days, they are overworked 
(p. 9), but then the owner gives them more fodder beet. 



Drai- in I 
nage 



I- 480 marks (3% = 14. 40 ) f cf table**!- 
11-3,000 " (3% = 90. 00 ) I J 



The same value of the product is taken. There are no facts. 
On the small farms, the cattle are given better care: 
'The cattle fatten under the owner's eye" (p. 27). 



*See p. 134.— Ed. 
**See p. 130. -Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



127 



In I and I, the same system and character of 
farming. 

Not so livestock farming. In II, the cattle are 
fattened for slaughter and are not bred, and in I, 
each head of cattle has been raised on the farm (p. 28). 
It is very, very common for the big peasant to buy 
lean cattle from the small peasant and fatten them 
up — all over Germany (p. 28): small farming has 
advantages over big farming in the raising of cattle 
(p. 29). 

Maintenance of structures — the small peasant 
mostly repairs everything himself (p. 30). 

In II dead stock is on a very high level (machines), 
but I is not backward (p. 31), for the small peasant 
makes do (!!) just as well with simpler implements. 

Depreciation in I — 2%, in II — 6%. II has had a 
cart for 10-12 years; I has farmed 22 years 
after his father, and has not bought a cart, and 
does not remember his father buying 
one either, and he had farmed for 30 years. . 
Small implements are used on small farms to the 
utmost (31). 

II spends 3,872. 93 marks on hired labour = 
36.53 per Morgen, while the small peasant econ- 
omises on all this, because he is both master 
and labourer (p. 33, too wordy). 
That is the tremendous advantage of small farming!!! 

Small farming — dearth of land. 

The buyer of a small holding is usually very 
well aware that it would be better for him, finan- 
cially speaking, to work for a daily wage and 
in addition to receive an income in the form 
of interest on his capital. But he rejects this 
higher profit for the sake of greater convenience 
(33).... 

In the coal area of Saarbriicken "these small hold- 
ers make up the best nucleus of the mine workers" 
(33) — as the author was told by a factory manager 
at Neunkirchen, and, contrary to Social-Demo- 
cratic agitation, Auhagen believes: 



N.B. 



128 



V. I. LENIN 



N.B. 



J" "The best thing the state could do in this area 
-I to solve the labour problem is to help workers to 
L acquire small plots of land, by granting credits" (33). 
Advantage of I: "He (the small peasant) fre- 
quently has the assistance of his children about 
the farm almost as soon as they learn to run" (34)! 

Pp. 39-40 — an example of the thriftiness of the 
small peasant (cited by Kautsky): a wife wore out one 
pair of shoes in 17 years of married life, etc., etc. 
Why I has higher crop yields 

1) more thorough working of the fields — work 
themselves; 

"The ordinary day labourer, especially on the 
big farms, thinks as he works: 'I wish the holi- 
day would come round sooner'; whereas the 
small peasant, in doing all kinds of urgent 
work anyway, hopes, 'I wish I could have another 
couple of hours today'" (p. 42). 

2) I does his work in time: he has more labour 
per hectare. The small peasant can get up 
earlier and go to bed late (43) 
when time is very short. 

3) I is not afraid of work: beetles were collected 
by hand. 

4) I takes in his crop faster, the grain has no time 
to drop. 

5) I has better seed material: it is, picked by hand 
in winter (no grain-sorter!). 

6) I uses more fertilisers, because he has more cattle 
(no figures). 

Sale 1= 3,400. 8 o — 735. 31 per hectare 
11= 14,097.4!— 531. 98 per hectare 
The net income is also higher (see table of per 
cent on capital*). 

Auhagen himself is aware that the living stand- 
ards are different (p. 49) and excludes housekeep- 
ing (see table**) 



*See p. 131.— Ed. 
**See pp. 130-31.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



129 



— but what I should like to point out, as a phenom-~ 
enon common for the whole of Germany, is the ^ q. , 
higher rent on small peasant farms as compared 
with the big peasant farms and landed estates (49). 

that is why land fetches more under small farming. 
Fragmentation of estates ... leads to ... an increase 
in the value of the national property (50) 

Auhagen admits that the small peasants are 
more liable to have backward systems of farming 
(51). These are impossible among big peasants: 
they can hold on only by improving. But progress 
comes not only from the big farm, but also from 
the well-to-do owner (!). 

Remarks on various parts of Germany (cursorily on the ad- 
vantages of different-size farms in different areas). 

"Ausgebaute" (those who settle on separate farmsteads 
outside the village) mostly run their farms better (54-55); 
there is more routine in the village. 

Receipts 



I II 

I. Cash from sales: marks marks 

products of field cropping 1,596. 40 7,991.i5 

" vegetable gardening .... — 90 

" livestock farming 1,804. 40 21,171. 2 6 

Other receipts (payments for tillage and 

cartage) 42 200 

Total receipts in kind 3,028. 80 * 29.452. 41 

II. For use in household: 

products of field cropping 182 178 

" vegetable gardening .... 30 50 

" livestock farming 346. 15 233. 50 

558. 15 461.50 

III. For feeding hired labourers: 

products of field cropping — 350 

" vegetable gardening .... — 35 

" livestock farming 377.04 

— 762.Q4 

Total receipts in kind 558.15 1,223.54 



So in the original. — Ed. 



130 



V. I. LENIN 



Outlays 








I 


n 


A I >rtm -a 'it 1 1 t* n *2 1~ *2 

. 1 « _L 1 1 ' 1 tli'lilf/ff 1 I/& 


Ill a I a.b 


Illdl Kb 




63-55 


321.54 


Insurance 


89. 


6OO.13 


Maintenance and depreciation of drai- 






nage (3%) 


14.40 


90-00 


Depreciation of capital in structures 






(%%) 


47.25 


187.50 


Maintenance of structures 


15. nn 
^ • uu 


178.60 


N.B. 


Depreciation of dead stock (2%) and 








6%!!!) 


14.49 


291.66 


N.B. 




15.oo 


285.Q5 


N.B. 






15,641. 0 o*) 






3,872. 9 3 




198.oo 


2,052.oo 




141.50 


1,537.50 




8-oo 




T 7 i • 


6-oo 


48.oo 




2-80 


6O.00 


n n nvi PG 


6-oo 


35.09 




621-87 


25,200. 91 


f2 TT a 'H e £> If & £> nn •a tr§ f i t* t~k « 1~ < 

J-> • -1.-*. X/ #*y 1' f-J f/ 1 f/ *J t / U r> 1/ r 


> 




Tripnmp fa y 


J-^-OO 


104.00 


Church tithes 


22-10 


IOO.95 




558-15 


461.501 


Supplementary purchase of potatoes 




50 y 


" meat . . 


18-00 


124. 8 o J 1 


| N.B. 



*) Including 14,355 for the purchase of 55 bull-calves 
sold for 19,420.50- Without this 

I has 0, whereas II has 1,286 marks 
a+P+Y I has 44. 42 , II has 755. 3 i 



44.42 2,041.3 



The total value of structures, 
dead and livestock 

implements = 9,151. 6 o 43,259 




CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



131 





T 
1 


TT 
LL 




marks 


marks 




ol-90 


/lb.oo 






OOO.oo 




oi 


bl 










25 


60 




24 


80 




26 


70 


Festivities etc 


25 


120 


Fuel 


59.15 






35.20 




Total housekeeping costs . . . 


1,158.50**) 


2,736. 2 5 




1,780.37**) 


27,955. 16 



c 

Total receipts 3,586.95 

Total outlays _ 1,780. 37 



In hand 806. 58 **) 71 

% of selling price (33,651.6 and 

149,5 5 9) 2. 39 %***) 

Adding housekeeping costs to income 

(p. 49), we have: 1,965. 0 8 

% of selling price 



30,675.95 
"27,955.16 

2,720. 79 



50/ * * *\ 
• 58 » ; 



5,457.04 

3.71% 
* . 



Total income from cropping 



(p. 26) from livestock farming 2,150.55 



1,778 {?p. 26} 8,519. 



6,613. 



N ) 



Family'. I husband+wife II husband+wife 

2 daughters (16 and 9 yrs) 1 daughter (9 yrs) 
5 persons. 1 son (7 yrs) 1 son — 14 yrs*) 

5 persons 1 nephew 17 yrs 



*) Board and tuition fees. 
**)Author is mistaken: 1,7 5 0. 37 and 836. 58 , in view 
of the erroneous figure of 1,128. 50 (cf. p. 48 and p. 13), 
instead of 1,158. 50 . 

***)Author is mistaken: !! 5. 45 % and !!! 8. 81 %, because 
he takes the totals of 836. 58 instead of 806. 58 , and 2,965. 08 
(sic!) instead of 1,965. 08 ; what is more, he is very badly 
out in his %% calculations!!! 

****) Additional income from bull-calves sold for 19,420. 5 
= 5,065. 50 . 



132 



V. I. LENIN 



Land 4. 6 250 na 

marks 

Farmland 4 ha at 5,400=21,600 
Meadow 0. 50 at 3,800= 1,900 
Vegetable 
garden 0. 125 at 8,000= 1,000 



4-625 



24,500 



(land II may be worse) 
[reason for lower crop yields??] 



Structures 
Dead stock 
Live " 



Total (selling 
price) 



6,300 

721.20 
2,130.4 0 



= 33,651.60 





I 


II 




Carriage .... 


0 


350 m 


arks 


Seed, drill . . . 


0 


400 




Fertiliser spread- 










0 


150 


?5 


Harvesting ma- 








chine 


0 


400 


?5 


Thresher .... 


0 


700 


55 


Grain cleaner . . 


0 


100 


55 


Cattle weighing 








machine. . . . 


0 


150 


55 




25(1)* 


80(2) 


* 



etc. 
Labour 



II 

26. 50 ha 

marks 

25 at 4,000 = 100,000 
1.25 at 3,600= 4,500 

0.25 at 7,200= 1,800 



26.50 



106,300 



25,000 
4,861 
13,398 



149,559 



II 



Family — 3 family workers 
(+help in threshing) 

Hired 



4 family workers?? or 3? 

(son at school) 

5 — year round 

6— from May 1 to Nov. 10 
4 — harvest (4-5 weeks) 
3— threshing (4 weeks) 



* Bracketed figures indicate number of ploughs. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



133 



Consequently, 
working days 3X360 
mine about=l,080 



p.t.o.* 



[about 100:400?]? about = 100:450 



1 AAO 


^ . ± , U o U J 


1,800 


5X360 


1,140 


6X190 


140 


4X 35 


84 


3X 28 


4,604 





ha ha 
Land 4. 6 25 26. 50 
Land 100 57 3 



total labour 



3 

100 



11.8 
393 



Teams 

I — 3 COWS 

II— 4 horses + 3 oxen 



Livestock 



3 cows 
2 pigs 
oxen 
horses 
and oxen 



1,260 
120 

270 (1)** 
0 



marks II 

1,200 (3)** 

450 
6,750 

4,950 (4) (3)" 
0 



(25 bull-calves 
for fattening) 



young stock 260 (2)" 



Consequently, 






Mine, 


all in terms 








of cattle 




I 


II 


I 


II 


Cattle 


3 


10 


3 


10 


Horned + young 












3 


25 


1-6 


12-5 




2 


3 


0. 5 


0-75 


Sow + 12 piglets . 




0 


0-5 










5-5 


total 23.25 



* See pp. 136-37.— Ed. 
** Figures in round brackets indicate head of cattle: see table on p. 136. — Ed. 



134 



V. I. LENIN 



Soil management 
Cultivation. 



Ploughing Artificial fertilisers Crop yield 

depth per ha in centners 

per ha 





I 


II 


I II 


I 


II 


Sugar-beet 

Fodder beet 

similarly 
_ p. 6 _ 


- 

- 25 cm 


30 cm 


31.50 40.50 

marks marks 
(3'/2 cent.) (4'/ 2 cent.) 


816 


740 


Rye 


6cm 


1 5 cm 


4 cent. 6 cent, 
superphosphate 
+ 

120 lbs 120-300 
Onile saltpetre 


64 


56 


Barley 


6cm 


1 5 cm 


4 cent. 4 cent, 
superphosphate 


60 


56 


Potatoes 


6 cm 
+ + 
25 cm 


1 0 cm 
20 cm 


— — 


320 


320 


Beans 


9 cm 


24 cm 


796 1,440 
cent, of stall manure 


66 


56 


Clover 


? 


? 


8 cent. 4 cent, 
superphosphate 


260 


210 


Winter wheat 


25 cm 


20 cm 


480 cent, f 8 cent. ~| 
of stall < of super- > ? 
manure |_ phosphatej 


80 


64 



And so, IPs cultivation and fertilisers are much better 
and the crop yields much worse!! {II clearly has the worse 
land} [No soil classification given] 



I II 

Total outlays on artificial fertilisers^ 198. o — 2,052.q marks 

per 'A ha . . .10. 70 — 19-36 marks 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



135 



Maintenance of cattle: 
Pp. 8 and 20: Feed for cattle 





] 




I 


I 




centner 


marks 


centner 


marks 




44. 64 


290. 16 


250.Q 


l,625.oo 


Rye 






lO.o 


70.oo 


Wheat 


0.40 


3-20 


15. 0 


120.Q0 




19-81 


118-86 


67.o 


402.00 


Oats 






239. o 


1,505.70 


Sugar-beet top . . . 


408.o 


81-60 


2,312.o 


462.40 


Fodder beet .... 


192.Q 


96.Q0 


— 


— 




10-20 


20.40 






Clover (dry) .... 


65.Q 


195.oo 


210.o 


630. 0 


Total .... 


805.22 




4,815.io 




Milk (I counted 
the prices) . . . 


1,320 
litres 


105.60 


240 
litres 


19-20 


Purchased feed . . 


25 
centners 


141-50 


275 
centners 


1,537.50 


(My) total 
% (mine) 




1,052.3 2 
100 




6,371. 8 o 
606 



There is no doubt that feed for cattle is 
better and more abundant in II 



Milk production 
I II 

3 cows 9,700 litres 3 cows 9,600 litres 



136 



V. I. LENIN 



> N.B. 



From September 15, II keeps 25 bull-calves, which 
he fattens and sells by January 1. Then from Janu- 
ary 1 to April 1, he keeps 30 bull-calves, fattening 
and selling them. Hence, the 55 bull-calves in the 
receipts and the outlays. It appears that Auhagen 
reckons the feed for 25 bull-calves a year. 

Let us compare with this the full data on the quantity 
of livestock 



I 

marks 



horses 

draught oxen 

cows 3 

cattle and young stock ... 3 

pigs 2 

sow and piglets 13 

chickens 17 

pigeons 

Total value of livestock 
% (mine) 

Quantitatively 

If all are put in terms of cattle, then 

cattle 

small cattle at l h 

small cattle at 'A 

small cattle at Vs 



1,260 
530 
120 
200 

20. 



4 
3 
3 
25 
3 

40 
40 



2,130.4 
100 

100 
(5. 5 ) 



II 

marks 

3,600 
1,350 
1,200 
6,750 
450 



40 



13,398 
629 



423 
(23. 25 ) 



3 


10 


1-5 


12-5 


0. 5 


0-75 


1.5?? (1)* - 




6.5(5.5)* 


23-25 



And the keep of workers? 

I. 3 workers of the family (p. 3) and 2 non-working 
members of the family. 
Their keep = 1,158. 50 for three workers 

II. 3 workers (!!) of the family (p. 15 
visors, when necessary, as workers"). 

Non-working members of the family 2 



"always as super- 

f 1? for the son \ 
1 is at school? J 



* Here Lenin gives in round brackets the difference (of one unit) in 
reckoning 12 piglets as cattle against his own calculation (see p. 133). — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



137 



Their keep = 2,736. 25 for 3 workers. 
Hired labourers 5 + 3 + 0. 8 = 8. 8 annually. 



Hired labourers: 5 the year round; 6 from May 1 to No- 
vember 10, i.e., 6 V3 months, i.e., 6 X 6'/3 = 38 months = 
3V6 years; 4 for 4-5 weeks, i.e., 4 X 5 = 20 weeks, and 
3 for 4 weeks, i.e., 3 X 4 = 12 weeks, a total of 32 weeks. 



Ve of year + = % + 8 A 3 = 73 = 78. 2 %, i.e., less than 80%. 



The small holder lives worse than the hired labourer of 
the big one, considering paid labour in I — 386 marks, 
II — 440 m arks per labourer. 

Results: for the small peasant 

1. Soil management worse: ploughing depth (p. 6)* 
smaller, less fertiliser. Con: crop yields. This means 
his land is better. 

2. Keep of cattle worse: statistical data p. 7.** 

3. Keep of labourer worse: p. 7*** (and p. 5****). 

4. Maintenance of dead stock worse: p. 5.***** 

5. Productivity of labour lower (cf. number of workers, 

The small peasant lives worse than the hired labourer 
of the big peasant and gives scantier "nourishment" to land 
and farm. 



The small peasant works harder: 3.**** 



*See p. 134.— Ed. 

**See p. 135.— Ed. 

***See pp. 136-37.— Ed. 

**** See pp. 130-31.— Ed. 

*****See p. 130.— Ed. 

****** See pp. 132-33.— Ed. 

******* See p. 131.— Ed. 

******** See p. 128.— Ed. 




Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



Printed from the original 



138 



V. I. LENIN 



CRITICAL REMARKS ON K. KLAWKI'S ARTICLE, 
"THE COMPETITIVE CAPACITY 
OF SMALL-SCALE 
PRODUCTION IN AGRICULTURE" 72 

Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher. Zeitschrift fur wissen- 
schaftliche Landwirtschaft. Herausgegeben von Dr. H. 
Thiel.* Berlin, 1899. XXVIII (28). Band (1899). (Six issues 
a year.) (1081 pp.+ tables.) 

Dr. juris Karl Klawki. "Ueber Konkurrenzfahigkeit des 
landwirtschaftlichen Kleinbetriebes" (S. 363-484). 

Most extensive calculations for 12 farms in the Brauns- 
berg district of East Prussia. (From paging through) make 
note of: p. 453 (and 452). 

oca (p. 452). "Big farms use an average of X U of their 



gross income in their own economy, medium farms, about 
l k, and small, roughly l h. Nevertheless, the share remain- 
ing on the small farms for marketing is greater than those 
on big and medium farms. The reason is above all that 
small peasants tend to limit their household expenses to 
the utmost. We cannot decide outright whether 
or not this partially results in some under- 
consumption, because the available material does not 
enable us to draw the correct conclusions on the overall 
household budget of the farmer and his family." 



* Agricultural Yearbooks. Scientific agricultural magazine. Published 
by Dr. Thiel.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



139 



Nutrition for one member of the family in marks (only 
from own farm?)* 



XX 



(p. 453) - 

(My calculation) 
average = 227 



Big farms 
II III IV 

269 — 185 



Medium farms 
I II III IV 

240—222—252—159 

= 218 



Small farms 
I II III IV 

136—142—163—97 

= 135 



According to Klawki (373) 
Small farm 1- 10 ha 
Medium " 10-100 ha 
Big " > 100 ha 



... (453). Part of the small peasants also diligently 



work as day labourers, and on such days receive from their 
employers board, in addition to their pay.... Whether there 
is any under-consumption among the small farms or not, we 
cannot say, but we think it is probable in the case of a small 
farm falling into Group IV. But the fact is that the small 
peasants live very frugally and sell much of what they, so to 
speak, save out of their mouths. (Sic!) 

P. 479: If we find in the final analysis that it is the medium 
farm that can produce a certain quantity of products at 
the lowest cost, we must take into account that the small 
farm may assess all its labour-power at a correspondingly 
lower figure than that used on the large and medium farms, 
because it is its own. In time of agricultural crisis, and 
even at other times, it is the small farms that are most stable; 
they are able to sell a relatively larger quantity of products 
than the other categories of farms by severely curtailing domes- 
tic expenses, which, it is true, must lead to a certain amount 
of under-consumption.** (!) 



* For an analysis of the table, see pp. 153-54. — Ed. 
** See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 111.— Ed. 



140 



V. I. LENIN 





Small 


Medium 


Big 




Crop yield 


farms 


farms 


farms 


p. 441 averages 


Wheat: 


6-7 cent- 


7-8 


8-9 


(per Morgen) 




ners 






given by Klawki 


Rye: 


7 


8-9 


10 


himself 



"The case is similar with all other crops" (441). 



"Only in flax, which is an extensive-farming crop, is 
there evidence of a growing tendency in favour of the small 
farms."* 

Namely, medium I 5 Stein of flax (per Morgen?) 

farms IV 6 

Small farms I 6. 5 " " (4. 50 Mk of income) 

III 8 " " (4. 50 Mk " ) 

IV 8 " " (4. 50 Mk " ) 



l h Stein of flax = 18 V 2 pounds (406). 



Disregarding the flax crop, which is on the whole of small 
importance at the present time, we have the highest yields 
on the big farms, and the lowest, on the small (441). 

Causes: 1) Drainage is almost entirely absent on the 
small farms. Or the pipes are laid by the 
farmers themselves, and laid badly. 

2) Ploughing is not deep enough — horses are 
weak. (Yoking of cows is doubtful. Doing 
heavy work, the cows will yield little milk.) 

3) Mostly insufficient feed for cattle — horned 
cattle 

4) Their manure production is inferior — their 
straw is shorter, most of it goes into feed, 
and less remains for litter (Unterstreuen).** 



See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 171. —Ed. 

Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 171, and Vol. 13, pp. 193-94.— Ed. 



On the big 
farms the 

soil is 
fertilised 
with marl 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



141 



(442). Those are above all the four causes for which small 
farms now lag in terms of income behind the big farms. 
Klawki then goes on to say that, in agriculture, machines 
are not all that important (common arguments. Not a single 
fact).... 

The list of machinery refutes Klawki: 



Steam thresher 
Horse-driven 

thresher. . . 
Grain-sorter . . 
Winnowing 

machines . . 
Seed drill . . . 
Manure spreader 
Horse-drawnrake 
Ring rollers . . 

Total = 



Big farms 
I II III IV 

0 10 0 

10 11 
1111 

112 — 
110 — 
110 1 
3 2 2 1 
1111 



29 



Medium farms 



I 


II 


III 


IV 


0 


0 


0 


0 


1 


1 


1 


1 


0 


0 


1 


0 


1 


1 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


0 


1 


1 


1 


0 


1 


0 


0 


0 



11 



Small farms 
I II III IV 

0 0 0 0 

0 10 0 
0 0 0 0 




1 



The big farmer willingly lends the small farmer his 
roller, his horse-drawn rake and grain-sorter, if the latter 
promises to supply a man to do the mowing for him in the 
busy season ... (443). (Characteristic "exchange of good 
turns"!)* 

Agriculture suffers from unfavourable marketing condi- 
tions. The peasants mostly sell "locally" and merchants in 
small towns force down prices very considerably (373). 

The large estates are better off in this respect, for they 
can send considerable quantities of their products to the 
provincial capitals right away. This usually gives them 20 to 
30 pfennigs more per centner than selling in small towns.** 



* Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 173. -Ed. 
** Ibid., p. 173. -Ed. 



142 



V. I. LENIN 



But Klawki took the same prices for all (373). 

The big landowners alone have exact book-keeping (374). 
Only as an exception among the peasants. 

There are no technical agricultural enterprises. "Peat 
extraction is primarily of great importance to the small 
farms, because they have the necessary time and manpower 
for it" (439). 

Flax growing has remained only among the small farmers: 
it requires a great expenditure of human energy. It is avail- 
able in the families of the small holders, but the big farm- 
ers find hire hard and costly (440). 



Improved crop 

rotation: .... Big farms 

i-rv 

Old three-field 

system: .... Big farms 



Medium farms 
I, II and IV 

Medium farms 
III 



Small farms 
II 

Small farms 
I, III and IV 



(441) 



Livestock farming. The big farmers I process their milk 
into butter: "their own very profitable use of milk". The 
big farms II-IV send their milk to the towns and obtain 
a higher income than the middle farmers, who process 
their milk into butter at home and sell it to traders. 

The middle farmers concentrate on the sale of well-fattened 
cattle. 

The small farmers sell their cattle younger — they cannot 
feed them as long as the middle farmers because they are 
short of feed (444). 

The butter produced on the medium farms (Klawki always 
calls them big peasant farms) is superior to that 
produced on the small farms (separators, daily churning), 
so that the latter are paid 5-10 pfennigs less per pound by 
the traders.* 



See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 173. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



143 



Par M organ 
(in marks) 


Big 
farms 


Medium 
farms 


Small 
farms 








(Average of 4 


farms) 






(per Morgen of tilled 
farmland (444))* 












Receipts from crop- 
ping 


16. 5 


18.2 


22. 7 


c. 445^- 




Receipts from live- 

c? t r\ r* v t q t* TV* i ti rr 
SLULK ld.lllilll^ 


15.8 


27.3 


41 r 
41.5 




Total .... 


32. 3 


45. 5 


64.9 


p. 447 




Sale of crop products 
oaie oi dmnidi prou- 


11 
14 


12 
17 


9 
27 


(p. 448-49) I 


Total .... 


25 


29 


36 






Including sale of 
milk and butter 


7 


3 


7 


(p. 450) 2 ) 


Consumption of crop 
products on home 


6 


6 


14 






Consumption of ani- 
mal products on 
home farm .... 


2 


10 


14 






Total .... 


8 OA) 


16 Oh ) 


28 


(about y 2 of 



all receipts) 

x ) In general, the drop in prices leads to a displacement 
of crop farming by livestock farming. 

The reason why small farms are superior in crop farming: 
the big farms spend more on the production of feed and the 
feeding of stock (Klawki excludes the feeding of stock from 
receipts (p. 441) from agriculture: this, he says, applies to 
livestock farming). 

The small farms keep many more animals per Morgen, 
although their cattle are, of course, not as valuable (446), 
and their horses are worse (447). The stock on the medium 
farms is not worse than that on the big farms. 

2 ) Medium farms use relatively much on the farm; for the 
big farms — marketing is profitable; on the small farms, 
butter and whole milk are used in very small quantities... 
not used at all on the small farms of Group IV (450). 



* Ibid., Vol. 5, p. 170.— Ed. 



144 



V. I. LENIN 



Per Mo rge n 
(in marks) 



Big 
farms 



Medium 
farms 



Small 
farms 



(Average of 4 farms) 



89 



91 



147 



13 


21 


37 


14 
29 
0.«1 

J 1 


8 
49 


2 
59 

o 43 


oh V 

21-51 


ij o 

16-94 


0 

5 -33 


23-31 


27-03 


51-67 


65 


38 


8 

marks 


70 


60 


80 



(p. 455) 
(my calcu- 
lation) 

(") 
(p. 459) 
(p. 460) 
(P- 461) 

(P- 461) 

(PP- 478-) " 

79 per Morgen oi 
landwirtschaft- 
lich benutzte 
Flache 73 

(p. 479) in marks 



Capital in structures 
Dead stock 

Capital in drainage 

Livestock 

Artificial fertilisers 
Concentrated feed *) 
Management and 
supervision .... 
Level of Without (a) 
outlays cost 
(aggre- of labour- 
gate) power 

with cost ((3) 
of labour- 
power 

Quantity of produce (a) 
valued at 100 marks 
is produced on ex- 
pending (£S) 

In giving these 2 tables, Klawki says: 

Both these tables most clearly show the great importance 
of the farmer's and his family's own labour-power. If 
we find in the final analysis that it is the medium farm 
that can produce a certain quantity of products at the 
lowest cost, we must take into account that the small farm 
may assess all its labour at a correspondingly lower figure 
than that used on the large and medium farms, because 
it is its own. In time of agricultural crisis, and even at 
other times, it is the small farms that are most stable; they are 
able to sell a relatively larger quantity of products than the 
other categories of farms by severely curtailing domestic 
expenses, which, it is true, must lead to a certain amount 
of under-consumption. This, as we have seen, is already 
taking place on the small farms of Group IV. Unfortu- 
nately, many small farms are reduced to this by the high 
rates of interest on loans. But in this way, although with 

*) Our peasant farms spend nothing on Kraftfuttermittel. 
They are very slow to adopt progressive methods and are 
particularly chary of spending cash (461).* 

* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 172.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



145 



great effort, they are able to stay on their feet and live 
from hand to mouth. Probably, it is the great diminution 
in consumption that chiefly explains the increase in the 
number of small-peasant farms in our locality, as indicated 
in the Reich statistics (cf. table on p. 372). (480).* 



In the Konigsberg Administrative Area (p. 372) 



Number of 
farms 





1882 


1895 


1882 


1895 


Under 2 ha 


55,916 


78,753 


26,638 


33,890 


2-5 " 


11,775 


14,013 


37,998 


44,596 


5-20 " 


16,014 


18,933** 


174,054 


196,498 


20-100 " 


13,892 


13,833 


555,878 


555,342 


100 and over 


1,955 


2,069 


613,038 


654,447 



Farmland under 
cultivation, ha 



And Klawki hast- 
ens to declare 
that this is an 
undesirable phe- 
nomenon. But 
there is progress 

even among 
the small farms: 
everything is for 
the best. 



The advantage of the big farmer — that he sells in carloads, 
etc., which is much more profitable, and he is better able 
to assess the value of his grain (451). The same goes for 
cattle. 

The big farmer sells his corn in centners, and his cattle 
by weight. 

The peasant sells his grain by measure (Scheffel), and 
cattle by appearance, which makes him lose a great deal.*** 

The small peasants do all the repairs of buildings (etc.) 
themselves. 

Medium farms III and IV and small farms lay their own 
drainage pipes. (Drainage is necessary in the locality, and 
there is an ever greater demand for pipes). 

P. 460: most of them (farms) began using fertilisers by 
way of experiment. 



* Ibid., pp. 177-78.— Ed. 
** Ibid., p. 178. -Ed. 
** Ibid., p. US. -Ed. 



146 



V. I. LENIN 



Labour costs. 
Per 100 Morgen 

Medi- 
Big um 
farms farms 

Hired labour in 
days 887 744 

Manual labour in 

days 887 924 

4 ) 

Value of produce 
per 100 working 

days (marks) 372 481 

5 ) 

Total cost of ma- 
nual labour per 

100 Morgen . . 1,065 1,064 

Cost of 1 working 
da y !-30 L 53 

Average annual 
earnings of la- 
bourer .... 391 458 

Income per 100 
marks of labour 

costs 305 470 

Ratio (p. 467) of kind to cash 
payments (p. 467): 

Disability and 
old-age insu- 
rance 0. 2g mark per 

0. 13 Morgen 

Hired labour in 
days per 100 

Morgen. ... 887 744 

Working days per 
100 Morgen 

Permanent labour- 
ers 822 638 

Day labourers . . 112 30 



Big farms 



Medium farms 



{ 



I II III IV I II III IV 

1,061 970 771 613 750 895 622 488 
1,061 970 771 746 l ) 977 2 ) 895 622 488 3 ) 



(including the labour of the peasants) 
(p. 463) 



(p. 463) 



(p. 465) 
(p. 466) 



Big farms 7 : 6 
Medium farms 24 : 6 



{None at all on small farms (p. 469) 



Instleute, etc. (p. 472) 
"free workers" !! 



147 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



There can be no calculation for the small farms. But 
it is obvious that they have some surplus-labour (464). 



Upper row — 
without cor- 
rection for 
substitution. 
Lower row — 
with correc- 
tions. 

4 ) A part of the work is said to relate to housekeeping: 
maids. This partially reduces the difference. 

5 ) Working much harder: the "example" set by the owner 
stimulates the labourers "£o greater diligence and 
thoroughness". 



*) The owner's two sons substitute for 2 
full labour-power units. 

2 ) 2 unmarried sisters of the owner substi- 
tute for 2 hired labouring women. 

3 ) 2 sons of the owner substitute for the old 
owner himself. 



148 



V. I. LENIN 




C£3 

O CO 



I 



CO 



GO 



3 

o 

03 



jararang 
pxmoj 



P B8 Q 



9Aiq o3 



CO co c- 



CO CN 

I I I 

OS C- co 
(M lO iO 



CO io -h Oi - 

CO -^t 1 OS CO 

o th"io to 

CM lO 



o 

o 3 

O 

+j cd 

<1 60 











CO 


mall 




or. 


W 


CI 

cS 


& 


CD 








O 




(73 




'> 


cd' 


-D 






'CD 


_o 


W 


CD 


> 




ctf 


GG 






u 



c— t- cn • 

(M CM O 

co CO 

lO CO LO ^ 



(NOlO 
CD CO CM 
CO 



5 I UO 

< T co 




bp 
PQ 



m 

cd eS. — i 
S m OJ 

.3 a-S 



rDT O rj 



us 



si'™ 

c a £ 

03 ffl g 

— ^ s 

CO 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



149 



O) CM 



CD CM 
LO CD 
O CD 



' + 



LO CO 
CO CD 
HO 



CD CD 

c- o 



O CO 

lo oq 




3-* 



be 

+ s-e r 2 

a) ^ Di « 
O m tH CM 



cm DC 



CD 



CO rl-H 

CD 

«S ci 

as 

A 

fe CD 

SP ^ 

cs 



S <» 

eg fH 
° 

JH CI *H 

fJ O 3 

o-rt o 



1 gji 



1 s.S 



CD 
> 

as 

, as 
■>c~ 

! <35 
. CO 



ci £ 

.2 2 



) o 
) A 



CD qj 
CD Ci 

B 60 a 
cd as 

n Pi © 

as O 

8 0". 



6.1 

as 

CD CO 



CM 



'1 ca.::: 



3 "£ 



o as 

CD r" 



el o 

o 3 

p. -J CD , 



O CO 

p CD 

■ +i 

CO 

O CD 



^ w TS CO 

W <!<! as TS 



, — i 



o 



CM 
+ 



as 



02 
c— 

■ 



£ + 

as C7> 

O t3 • 

ShO ' 

3 £ M 

2 03 fl 

w >> co 



-(J 1 
CD 



© 2 

CO 



-p 

Pi 

bo as 

as Td 
Pi 

as 



CI _ 
O 

'■{3 o 

o o 

3 10 

CD V 



Be 

o o 
o o 

10 CN 

I I 



■<t m co t- 



>> co 
'a3 S 



03 °, 

CD CO 
ft ^ 



co O 

£ s 

as a 

ft 



CD 



S 0 

OS Ci 

«H O 

CD -u 

^3 as 
O 

.2 6- 

ftS 



CD 

a 
o 

an 
e 
^3 



o 

CD 

CI » 



i + 



a 

Oh 



2^ 

, , CD 

OS rC 

s 2 

" co 
CD . 

^3 ■ 



^3 



0 

O ^3 



CD 

a 

IS T3 



O Sh » g 

CD 

— 5 e o 

OS S 



-5PQ 

a 

o F 

be 



o 

-a . 

CD j. 



CI 
cS 



cS 
CD 

0 p5 



I 



CD 

a o 



co sr.rf 

1 ci 

o 



CD CM 



O S 



CO co T3 

CD CO CD ^ 

O CD CO d 

co 0 g 
co 

cd ;^ 

53 0 
0 
o 

^ 1 



OS Ci 
*h cd 



CD - 

o 
^ 1 



as 

O 



> o 

CD |> 

H ,2 



ft 5h bo 

" 53 S 

CD 43 

T3 O 
CI '. 
OS •' 



OS 



CM 



Ci 

co ""O O 
Ph OS co 
CD 

ci ci 

O „ 

T3 O 
,5 hO 
CD OS 

^ 2 



CD 
ft 



O 



o 
o 

00 



I 



^3 



ft 
10 



o 

> 

o 



T3 

CD 



Ci 
CD 



* 



GO H H H 



150 



V. I. LENIN 



1,000 
1,000 
900 
800 



Hence deductions for farmer's keep: 
Grossbetrieb: 2,000-1,900 Mk 
Mittelbetrieb: 1,716-1,200 
. Kleinbetrieb: 1,000-800 



3,700-s-4 
= 925? 

Labourer's income = 850 

There is no insurance of labourers on the small farms, 
and on the medium farms: No. I — 36. 78 ; II — 32. 31 ; III — 24. 60 , 
and No. IV, insurance of employees — 7. 54 

Big farm I. There is an inspector. The owner comes over 
from his main estate once a month (374) — (sic! 2,000 Mk 
for this) for a few days.** There is an experienced stewardess 
and a housekeeper. Outlays on salaries + office expenses = 
1,350 + 150 marks + maintenance of inspector, etc.= 
1,350. (Over and above the wages of the hired labourers 
and the day labourers!). Insurance of labourers = 644. 04. 

Big farm II. Inspector and experienced woman pig-keeper. 
Owner — only direction and general supervision. (Salary — 
1,100, general management — 100). Insurance of labourers = 



Big farm III — owned by a bishop — run by manager with 
a fixed annual salary. (Salary = 1,800. Office expenses = 
150). Insurance of labourers = 338. 25 marks. 

Big farm IV ... would consider it more correct to call 
it a big-peasant estate. Insurance of labourers = 108. 10 .*** 



* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 175.— Ed. 
** Ibid.— Ed. 
***Ibid.-£d. 



59.76- 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



151 







> 




GO 


1 


o 
d 


CO 

d 


o 
lo 


o 
o 


oo 


Stein 




farms 


K 


CO 






00 




o 

LO 


o 
o 


GO 




Small 


K 




00 




00 




cn 

CO 


o 
o 


1 










16 


CO 




LO 


1 


oo 

CO 


o 
c~ 


CO 


Stein 


rgen (p. 441) 






CD 








L> 


o 


o 
o 

T — 1 


CO 


Stein 


i farms 


K 




00 


00 


d 


d 


CO 


LO 


1 




>er Mo 


Mediun 


M 


oo 


d 




d 


CO 


CO 
LO 


o 
o 

<N 


1 




tners p 








CO 


l> 


00 


1 


C- 
LO 


o 
o 

CN 


LO 


Stein 


in cen 






d 




oo 


d 




LO 
LO 


o 
o 

CN 


1 




Crop 


farms 




oi 


d 


d 


CO 




O 
LO 


LO 

CO 


1 






Big 






d 


d 


i> 


1 


co 


o 
o 

CN 


1 










f 

00 


CO 
00 

d 


10 
o 

tH 


00 

o 
d 


cn 
f 
d 


00 


LO 

CN 
CM 


1 










Wheat 


CD 
>> 

Pi 


Barley 


Oats 


Peas 


Potatoes 


Fodder beet 


Flax 





152 



V. I. LENIN 



■a g 
a £ 

CO e4 ~' 



CO 



2 a 



CO 


O 


to 


cn 




oi 




GO 


CO 


CO 


CM 


CO 


CN 


CO 


CN 



Oi 
CM 



CM 
CO 



60 B 

PQ a 



[ - 




1 - 


o 


' — 1 




03 








CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 





CM 



O 

CD 



CD 
>> 

PS 



>> 

CD 
i — i 

ceS 

pq 



cS 

O 



cs 
CD 



o 
Pm 



CD 
CD 



CD 
O 



I 



ft 
ft 



■a g 
a S 

GO 1 " 



CO 



o 

> 

a 

o 



la 



CD 



CD 



Ma 

PQ a 



CO 
CD 



O 



CD 
CD 

* 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



153 



Subsistence for one member of the family*) (Quantity of 
food products consumed on the farm itself) 

(p. 453) 



XX 



Number of 
persons 
Marks 

per person 

(My calcu- 
lation) 



Big farms 
I II III IV 



5 2 ) 
269 



6 3 ) 



185 



Average 227 



Medium farms 
I II III IV 



240 222 2 ) 252 159 2 ) 
» » ' 



218 



Small farms 
I II III IV 

4 5 3 5 

136 142 163 97 
1 * ' 

135 



x ) Inspector, housekeeper, stewardess and 2 maids engaged 
in housekeeping. 

2 ) 2 children under 10 years ="one adult" 

3 ) 1,108.28 + 6 = 185. Husband + wife + 3 sons + ? 



Big farm IV even has to buy butter for itself. Further- 
more, we must take into account that the larger the farm, 
the greater is, as a rule, the quantity of additional food 
products purchased (453).* 

The medium farm consumes very much, surpassing the 
"average rational nutrition standard". 

It is interesting how Klawki makes an (absurd) attempt 
to smooth out this difference: 

Let us assume, however, that the small farms are able 
to secure a higher cash income only by some under-consump- 
tion. To smooth out this fact, let us take the cost of consump- 
tion per person as 170 marks a year (?? why not 218-227?), 
an amount which should be regarded as being exaggerated 
rather than minimised, if we take into account the fact 
that the estimate includes food products coming only 
from the home farm itself. If on the strength of the figures 



*) The food of the menials and, for example, flax, have 
been deducted from natural consumption. The other amounts 
are divided per head. 



See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 176. — Ed. 



154 



V. I. LENIN 



in the given table we assume that the small farm has an 
average size of 20-25 Morgen, and that the number of family 
members engaged in farming is 4, consumption would come 
to an average of 135 marks per person. Comparing with 
this figure the hypothetical consumption of 170 marks per 
person, we get + 35 marks, and with 4 persons, 140 marks. 
Dividing that by 20-25 Morgen, the figure comes to 6-7 marks 
per Morgen. This means that for this purpose the market 
would have to be deprived of produce worth that much. 
Thus, the small farm would be receiving only 29-30 marks 
of net income per Morgen, and would then be equalised with 
the medium farm; but it would still have an edge over the 
big farm.* 

Let us take not 170 but 218 marks— 135 = 83; 4 + 5 + 
3 + 5 = 17; 17-s-4 = 4y 4 ; 83 X 4. 25 =351. 15 ; 351^-20 = 17. 5 
marks; 351^-25 = 14. 4 ; 14. 4 + 17. 5 = 31. 9 ; 31. 9 -s-2 = 15. 9 . 

Consequently, 14 72-17 l k marks per Morgen 

average 15. 9 
{36— 14.5 = 21.5; 36—17. 5 =18. 5 } 36—15.9 = 20.! 

Big farm Medium farm Small farm 

Receipts from sales 25 29 20. 1 



P. 464: The small farms have the greatest capacity for 
resistance. 

The small farmer can assess the ... labour-power used ... 
at a correspondingly lower price, because that is his own 
labour, whereas the big peasant and the landowner depend 
on the general conditions of wages and must more or less 
reckon with the demands of the labourers. The small farmer 
is also more capable than the big one, and above all than 
the landowner, to reduce the portion going into the manage- 
ment of his enterprise, the entrepreneur's profit, because at 
critical moments he is able to restrict himself severely 
(sic!) in his housekeeping. 

This is the small farm's advantage in a crisis. 



See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 176-77.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



155 



...In peasant households, the labourers are certainly 
better fed than by the landowners (467).* 

The labourers cost more but produce more. (The exception 
is the big farm IV — rather, the big-peasant farm.) 

Wages for 
Scharwerker 

Income of Instmann family (big farm I) =799—120 = 679 Mk 
of Deputant family 75 (big farm I) =704— 60 = 644 
of Instmann family, big farm II =929—120 = 809 
of Deputant family, big farm II =658— 60 = 598 
of Instmann family, big farm III =779— 89 = 690 

" IV =861— 75 = 786 
Medium farm II (Instmann family) =737— 30 = 707 

Medium farm I " "" =same. 

If the Scharwerker are the 
Instmann's children, his 

family income = 800-900 marks (p. 475) 

If the Scharwerker are the 
Deputant's children, his 
family income = 600-700 marks 

(number of family members not given anywhere!) 

Thus, it is not for the sake of higher wages that the Inst- 
mann is more willing to work for the peasant owner. The 
reason: the author says, it gives him more spare time, so 
he can do day labour (!?) (p. 476). 

When lucky, such Instleute purchase a few Morgen of 
land out of their savings (from wages). For the most part 
they find themselves worse off financially; they are aware 
of this but are tempted by the greater freedom (476). Many — 
not the worst, by far — go to the towns. 

The most important task of modern agrarian policy 
for the solution of the agricultural labourer problem in 
the East is to encourage the most efficient labourers , , 
to settle down by affording them the opportunity of !! 
acquiring a piece of land as their own property, if 
not in the first, then at least in the second generation 
(476).** 

On p. 477, Klawki declares that the peasant finds it 
easier to obtain labourers. But the labourer problem is being 
aggravated even for the peasant. The peasants complain of the 
difficulty of obtaining labourers, especially labouring women. 

* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 174.— Ed. 
** Ibid., p. 178. -Ed. 



156 


V. I. LENIN 














Final 


compar 


Marks per Morgan 




Large farms 






I 


II 


III 


IV 


1) Total receipts 


35.05 


33-68 


25.80 


38-is 


2) Total outlays 


26. 24 


25.86 


17. 46 


23-66 


Net profit per Morgen 


8-81 


7 -82 


8-34 


14-52 


" ha 


35-26 


31-28 


33.36 


58-08 



Average per Morgen 9-87 



Average: 1) 33-48-44.i8 -64.24 Strangely enough, this calcu 
figures! 
2) 23-3q - 27.q3 - 51.66 

9.88 17-45 12-58 

Con Klawki's calculations: 

1) he takes the same prices (p. 3).* But the big farms get 

2) he makes a correct reduction in the assessment of the 
to the medium farm and the small one (pp. 7 and 8)* 

3) he fails to take account of labour on the medium and 
(laying pipes themselves), etc. 

4) Consumption of own farm products tends to decrease 
milk))* (9-10).* (Included also: hired labour of the 
labourers!! Klawki's reasoning about this pp. 1 and 2, 

5) The labourers work more intensively on the medium 
on the big ones. 

6) The big farms have greater outlays on disability and 
(artificial fertilisers, concentrated feed, drainage). 

7) No account is taken at all of labour in supervision on 



* References to the pages of the MS. relate to the following pages of 
p. 5— p. 145; pp. 7-8— pp. 148-50; p. 5— pp. 145-46; p. 2— p. 140; p. 5— p. 146; 
p. 7— pp. 148-50; p. 11— p. 155; p. 1— pp. 138-39; p. 2— pp. 139-40; p. 5— pp. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



157 



ison: (p. 483) 





Medium 


farms 






Small 


farms 




I 


II 


III 


IV 


I 


II 


III 


IV 


46.61 


44.14 


40.83 


50.09 


45.34 


59-78 


56-75 


95-10 


26.50 


27-20 


23-53 


30. 8 8 


38-86 


40-65 


48-80 


78-35 


20.U 


I6.94 


17-30 


19-21 


6-48 


19-13 


7 -95 


I6.75 


8O.44 


67.76 


69-20 


76-84 


25-92 


76-52 


31-80 


67.oo 



18-39 



cf. Bulgakov 
I 58 



12-58 Mk 



lation (which is mine) differs somewhat from Klawki's 



more (pp. 3-4, p. 5)* 

value of a family's labour-power from the big farm down 
small farms for repairs (p. 5)*, drainage (pp. 2 and 5)* 



from the big to the small farms (pp. 1, 2, 4 bottom (no 
small farms: p. 3 top, p. 7, p. 1 1 for allotting land to 
pp. 5, 10).* 



farms (p. 6 note 5 )* (and receive more: p. 11)* than 
old-age insurance and on improvements in agriculture 
the medium farms. 



this volume: p. 3 of the MS.— p. 142 of this volume; pp 3-4— pp. 142-43; 
p. 1— p. 139; p. 2— p. 139; p. 4— p. 143; pp. 9-10— pp. 153-54; p. 3— p. 141; 
144-45; p. 10— p. 154; p. 6— p. 147; p. 11— p. 155.— Ed. 



158 



V. I. LENIN 



KlawkVs data are highly inadequate: very many gaps. 
For instance, there are no data at all on feed. The total 
crop is not classified by requirements: sowing, feed, con- 
sumption, sales. 

It is hardly possible to fill in these gaps. 

Thus, big farm I. Total of 513. 71 ha 

(consequently 2,054. 84 Morgen) 

Farmland under cultivation = 1,540 Morgen 

(p. 375 and p. 382) 514. 84 Morgen 

Ploughland and artificial meadow Morgen Morgen 

Wheat — 12 forest = 449. 84 

Winter rye —312 unsuitable 

for farming = 2.33 

Spring rye — 14 

Barley — 22 ponds = 20. 88 

Oats —180 roads = 15. 04 

Peas — 42 38. 80 

Vetch — 33 ^=^= 

Potatoes — 42 488. 6 4 , 

Beetroot — 22 vegetable garden 25. 96 ~"~ 

Lupine — 33 

Clover and timothy —540 514.60 

1,252 

Deputants' land 76 about 50 (probably 53. 84 ) 

1,302 1,305. 84 
Meadow 123 123. 48 

1,425 1,429.32 _2,054. 84 

Best pastureland (?) . . . . = 110. 92 110. 92 1,540. 24 

1,535.92 1,540.24 514.60 

Vegetable garden 25.79 

, * > 

ha Morgen 

Roads and yards 3.76 

Ponds 5.22 

Ploughland 326. 46 = 1,305. 84 

Meadow 30. 87 = 123. 48 

Best pastureland 27. 73 = 110. 92 

Forest 112. 46 

Vegetable garden 6. 4 9 

Waste land and loam . . . O.72 

513-71 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



159 



Since K. Klawki gives the marketed products and 
those consumed on the farm in cash terms only, it would 
be necessary to 1) determine the gross crop by multi- 
plying each number of Morgen for the types of cereals 
by the average crop; 2) subtract the sowing; 3) multiply 
the difference by average prices (and these prices are 
not given for all the products); 4) subtract the marketed 
products, etc. Furthermore, since the quantity of livestock 
has not been reduced to a single unit, it is quite impos- 
sible anyway to determine in figures how well the cattle 
is fed. 

Consequently, such calculations are useless. 



Cf. Brase s article,* especially pp. 292 and 297-98. 

Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



See pp. 160-68— Ed. 



160 



BRASE AND OTHERS 77 



a. 

ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM BRASE'S ARTICLE, 
"STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF FARM DEBT ON FARMING" 



Thiels Jahrbucher. 28. Band (1899). 

Dr. Brase. "Untersuchungen iiber den Einfluss der 
Verschuldung landlicher Besitztiimer auf deren Bewirt- 
schaftung" (S. 253-310). 

A study was made of landed estates (17) and peasant 
farms (34) "in one district of the Liegnitz Administrative 
Area" (Lower Silesia). 

The author gives a list of all these estates, but without any 
summing up. 17 landowners, each with 75-924 ha (9 with 
200-500 ha; 1 has under 100 ha, namely 75; 1 with 127 ha; 
1 with 924; 1 with 819). For each estate he gives only the 
number of ha (and categories of land), quantity of livestock, 
assessed value and debt ("according to an 1896 study"). 

Two of the 17 have no debt at all (204 and 333 ha); two 
with over 100% of the value (105 and 104%); 1—90-100%; 
3—80-90%; 2—70-80%; 2—60-70%; 1—50-60%; 
2—40-50%; 1—30-40%. 

Among the peasants, 5 are free from debt. 

'1 with 7 ha 1 
7—10-20 ha I 
the rest — | 
20-110 ha J 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



161 



2 up to 10 per cent of the assessed value 



5 


10-20 


7 

I 


20-30 


3 


30-40 


5 


40-50 


3 


50-60 


3 


60-70 


1 


70-80 


34 





The author regards as "unburdened by debt" those 1) with- 
out mortgage; 2) with mortgage but also with at least an 
equal amount of capital; 3) with insignificant debt (pp. 262- 
63). 

Detailed description of the farms (landed estates are 
marked in small Latin letters: a-r) 

a) 205 ha. Excellent estate: (8 horses + 14 oxen + 
106 head of big horned cattle) the "pearl" of the district. 
(Debt = 87% of value). Very high crop yields, high culture. 
"The soil was only gradually brought up to this state by 
systematic drainage, abundant fertilisation, deep turning 
up and care for the ploughland by means of neat and timely 
cultivation, and drill and row crops" (p. 264). 

All the structures are massive — "a vast amount of capital 
is invested here". 'The livestock is highly fattened, all, 
without exception." 

All types of machinery. The crop-rotation system is ration- 
al, the fertilisation is very heavy (manure and artificial 
fertilisers). 

"The erection of costly structures swallows up all the 
rent." 

b) 301 ha; debt— 46. 3 %. 

The soil has been improved by many years' cultivation, 
cleared of stones, etc., a great quantity of lime has been 
added. 

The structures are all good, all massive, cost 170,000 Mk. 
All the livestock (10 horses + 26 oxen + 100 head of 
big horned cattle + 400 sheep) is fed and kept rationally. 
All types of machines (no enumeration). 



162 



V. I. LENIN 



Fertilisers well stored. Artificial fertilisers bought. 
Ploughing 17-20 cm (beetroot: 30-35 cm). Row culti- 
vation. 

c) 758 ha. (Livestock: 26 horses + 54 oxen + 220 head 
of big horned cattle + 900 sheep). Debt — 76. 9 % of value. 
A model farm like a and b. 

Land, structures and livestock are very good. Machinery. 

"Stall (manure) fertiliser is stored in the best way." 
20,000 kg of Chile saltpetre + 30,000 ammoniac superphos- 
phate + 3,000-4,000 kg of kainite are bought. 

Deep ploughing; row tillage; irrigation of meadows; very 
high yields. 

d, e, f—not model farms, but "rational". 

d) (75 ha) drained systematically. Heavy use of fertiliser. 
Artificial fertilisers. Deep ploughing. Drill and row tillage. 

e) (229 ha). Drainage started. Structures massive, part 
of them new. Livestock well fed. Artificial fertilisers 
(10,000 kg of Chile saltpetre; 25,000 of superphosphate; 
50,000 kg of potassium salts and lime). 

Ploughing 12-17 cm, potatoes 20-25 cm, still deeper 
for beetroot. 

f. drained. Deep ploughing, etc. "Rather more than less 
is being done for the structures and their maintenance" 
(272). 

Very good feed for livestock. 8 litres of milk a day per 
cow. 

5,000-6,000 marks' worth of artificial fertilisers a year 
(15,000 kg of Chile saltpetre; 30,000-40,000 of superphos- 
phate, 50,000 of kainite). 

g (819 ha). Good structures. Stables new in part. Drainage. 
Milk — 3,000 litres per cow (a year). 
All livestock of the best quality. Feed good. 
Artificial fertilisers. Machinery. Deep ploughing. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



163 



h (693 ha). Drainage. Good fertilisers. Massive structures, 
some of them new. 

Livestock fed well. Concentrated feed purchased. 
Artificial fertilisers. Deep ploughing. 



i (527 ha). Massive structures, in good condition. 
Livestock well fed. Machinery. Deep ploughing. Arti- 
ficial fertilisers. 



k (445 ha). (Debt 95. 7 per cent.) Farming in a "simple" 
way. "Ramshackle" structures, thatched roofs. 
Deep ploughing 12-17 cm. Row tillage. 
Owner lives very frugally. 

No artificial fertilisers, no feed is purchased. The 
horses are overworked (despite intensive feeding). 



I (347 ha). Debt 42. 3 per cent. (Row tillage introduced, 
artificial fertilisers used, concentrated feed purchased, 
steam machines introduced, but the result was negative.) 

A return to "extensive" farming: as little as possible 
artificial fertilisers and feed bought. 

Livestock feed simpler. Milk — 5 litres a day per cow. 



m (924 ha, 750 ha of forest). Mainly forestry. Way 
of farming is simple and cheap. 

t&(572 ha) {very heavily in debt}. Unfavourable 
conditions. 1872 drainage run down. No money for new 
one. Too much was paid for the land. 

All structures massive, but house for labourers is old 
thatched mud hut. There are machines, some out of order, 
lack of feed, poor soil — in short, everything is bad. 



o (281 ha). New stables. 6-8 litres of milk a day. 
Artificial fertilisers. Intensified feeding of livestock. 



164 



V. I. LENIN 



"The manure comes from the intensively fed livestock; 
it lies in the dung channels of the cattle shed until it is taken 
out into the fields, and is rationally preserved by means of 
kainite and superphosphate. Only rye and wheat straw is 
used as litter, heather and wood and other foliage no longer 
being used" (286-87). 

Ploughing 17-20 cm. Row tillage. 

p (127 ha). Bought at too high a price. Debt 57 per cent. 
The new owner buys more artificial fertilisers and feed, 
better machinery, etc. 



q (204 ha) (Farming operations are too costly for this 
kind of land: "splendid estate", "everything that is best 
in technical but not in economic terms is being done"). 
The structures are massive, the stables are vaulted and 
adapted for the storage of manure. Feed is bought. 

Machinery — rather in excess. 

Intensive farming. Artificial fertilisers. 

kg 

120,000 kainite 
35,000-40,000 Thomas slag 

5,000 superphosphate 
5,000 ammoniac 
2,500 Chile saltpetre 



r (333 ha). Massive structures. 

Cow sheds are not vaulted, maintenance careful. 

New living quarters for labourers. 

Modest dead stock. Ploughing 12-17 cm. 

Irrigation of meadows. 



Peasant farms are not listed separately. 

"The big and middle peasants as a rule farm better, more 
intensively, than the small peasants, the big vegetable 
gardeners (Grossgartner) and owners of dwarf plots" (292): 

deeper ploughing (cows weak) 

row tillage 

artificial fertilisers and feed purchased. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



165 



"If, finally, the crop yields of the peasant farms lag behind 
those of most landed estates, this is due above all to the 
peculiarity of small and medium land holdings. The peasant 
ploughs 5 or 8 cm shallower, in an effort to spare his young 
horses, which he wants to sell at a profit. In general, he 
knows how to take care of his livestock much better than 
hired farm-hands usually do. He cannot have special imple- 
ments for each separate purpose, improve cultivation 
methods endlessly, stage long experiments in tillage and 
the use of fertilisers, and many other things" (292). 

The peasant tries to improve his farming methods by 
introducing artificial fertilisers and purchasing feed, and 
machinery. 

"The peasant has long since realised the importance of 
deep ploughing and timely cultivation, the need for correct 
selection of valuable sorts of seeds for sowing, the keeping 
of stall manure, and many other similar things. Where he 
fails to eliminate the shortcomings which can be righted, 
thereby acting against his own convictions, or is forced 
to do so, he is, as a rule, short of capital to do this" (293). 

The structures are "almost everywhere" massive and in 
good repair. The livestock is well fed. 

This is the first group of peasant farms, 12 (south of a Kreis- 
stadt (district town)) out of 34 (No. 1-11 and No. 18) 



No. 18 = 110 ha 



The second group consists of 2 2 (to the north) out of 
34 (of these 22: 4 with 10-20 ha; 11, with 20-50 ha; 7 with 
50-95 ha). The land is damp sand, which suffers from stag- 
nant moisture. Ploughing 10-13 cm. 

"A primitive wooden plough is pulled by a small 
overworked horse or weak half-starved team of cows" 
(296). 

Too much ploughed under for cereal grains... 
short straw, thin stalks, empty ears and flat grains.... 
They usually keep more cattle than the scanty stocks 
of feed warrant. There is frequently a shortage of 
feed and litter.... In winter, this quantity of cattle 
somehow survives on straw, chaff, glume, and 
small quantities of roots and putrid hay. Feed 



N.B. 



166 



V. I. LENIN 



is short at all times, and is of poor quality; in some 
parts, the drinking water, with a high iron-content, 
is harmful for the animals. In consequence, the 
cattle are small, lean, with coarse wool, or simply 
grow sickly and starve in small dark sheds. That is why 
one cannot expect them to be used correctly, or 
expect great quantities of good manure. 

"Fertilisers are produced for each crop, but i n 
homeopathic doses. It is impossible ... 
to make up for this poor and inadequate fertiliser 
by purchases of kainite. It is not fair to expect a sick 
man to be efficient. Alongside the lack of means, 
there is lack of management and experience. The 
peasant never uses lime, and green fertiliser only 
in separate cases... (297). The cultivation of the 
fields is hopelessly primitive but still burdensome; 
the collected manure is scattered, % or 3 / 4 of 
the seeds is sown by hand, then the field is ploughed, 
and then the other x k or l U is sown on the surface 
and harrowed with a home-made harrow. Rye 
is sown occasionally, from time to time, because of 
the lack of fertiliser. It would, of course, be better 
to change the seeds, but that and much else is not 
done because of the shortage of capital. The peasant 
avoids anything that costs money, as a matter of 
principle, if he wishes to last. He continues to 
thresh his grain the old way, with a flail, either 
picking by hand or sifting all the rubbish. Recently, 
some holders who are better off bought themselves 
a small horse-driven thresher. The straw is used 
mostly as feed, whereas it would do better (predom- 
inantly) as litter for the animals. Furthermore, 
there is need to chop up hay and straw for feed, to 
cover the potato and beet stores with straw, mend 
the holes in the thatch, and mix some hay with the 
straw to make it last as long as possible, so that 
when the straw crop is poor, nothing or very little 
remains for litter. It so happens that the use of 
forest leaves becomes the general rule. No more 
chopped straw goes into litter, but only conifer 
which is collected in the forest every year. The 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



167 



upshot is that the few pines growing on the denuded 
sand go to seed, and that, despite the vast forests, 
there is a shortage of timber for building, once the 
dilapidated structures, repaired innumerable times, 
threaten to collapse altogether. Even the holders 
with more money at their disposal are in no posi- 
tion to erect new structures. There is lack of stone, 

gravel, clay, timber, and above all, money 

Everything is in short supply. The unfortunate farmer 
of these sad parts labours and toils with his often 
numerous family from dawn to dusk, day in, day 
out; his toil-hardened hands and lean face are 
a sign of nothing but unceasing hard work. He strug- 
gles for his unenviable existence, fights misfortune 
and care, and barely manages to keep body and 
soul together; he strains his every fibre to obtain some 
money, before it is too late, to pay off the urgent 
interest and taxes, but fears that he may be ruined 
anyway. He has no means for any radical improve- 
ments; but the fact is that they alone could help 
him and make his naturally poor scrap of land 
solidly productive and capable of giving better 
sustenance to its owner" (298) 

— the only happy exception among these 22 holdings in the 
second group is the estate of the village headman at R. 
(No. 18: 110 ha, 43 head of big horned cattle, 4 pigs + 6 
horses, a debt of 5 0. 3 per cent; only three of these 
22 peasants have a higher debt percentage than this). 

On average, the master of R. takes in 2-3 times more 
grain, 3-4 times more potatoes, 6-8 times more beetroot 
than all the other holders in R., who farm the old way, 
and who, because of their debts, have no opportunity or 
reason to farm any other way. The master of R. raises crops 
which his neighbours are unable to introduce successfully 
into their crop rotation, because their soil lacks the necessary 

cultivation and manuring He (the master of R.) paid 

for his estate in cash, and has capital at his disposal. 
It is capital and labour that have yielded such excellent 
results. No peasant could have created "an oasis in a desert" 
if he had no financial support, as a prerequisite to back up 
his efforts (300). 



168 



V. I. LENIN 



He has "dry sand" which is being gradually brought into 
cultivation (green fertiliser). He uses kainite, etc., "on a 
large scale" ... he does row tillage, ... there is no lack of straw, 
new cow sheds ... various machines.... Cattle well fattened.... 
Cow shed is built advantageously, and is spacious and 
full of light.... The cattle have clean and dry litter (299), 
etc. — yield a great quantity of good manure, etc., etc. 

Keeps farm-hands.... 

(In conclusion the author argues hotly against the assump- 
tion that debts help to improve farming. On the contrary, 
he says, debts tend to oppress, etc. A farm needs capital; 
examples of rich peasants with capital, traders, a former 
policeman, etc., etc.) 



Crop yield in kg per h a: 

wheat rye barley oats potatoes fodder 

beets 

Landowners 1,000-2,800 600-2,200 1,200-3,000 600-2,800 10-21 20-80 

thous. thous. 

Peasants 400-1,800 300-1,400 250-2,000 440-1,800 4'/ 2 -14 4-52 

thous. thous. 



b. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 
AND ANNOTATIONS 

Dr. Michael Hainisch: "Die Zukunft der Deutsch-Oesterrei- 
cher". Eine statistischvolkswirtschaftliche Studie. (Wien, 
1892). S. 165.* 

There appears to be very little statistics proper here, 
but there seems to be something on the debts of peasants and 
the ruin of peasant farms under the influence of the money 
economy: Section IV (pp. 114-53): "Plight of Peasantry, 
etc. 

Dr. Carl von Grabmayr (Landtagsabgeordneter in Meran). 
Schuldnoth und Agrarreform. Eine agrar-politische Skizze 



* Dr. Michael Hainisch: "The Future of the Germano-Austrians." 
A Statistical-Economic Study. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



169 



mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung Tirols. Meran 1894. 
(S. 211).* 



General 
figures on 
the growth 

of debt 



Also his. Die Agrarreform im Tiroler 
Landtag. Meran 1896. (S. 157).** 



Statistische Monatsschrift. Wien 1901, Neue Folge, VI. 
Jahrgang (der ganzen Reihe 27. Jahrgang). 

(Alfred Holder, k.u.k. Hof- und Universitatsbuchhandler. 
Wien I. Rothenthurmstrasse. 13.)*** 



Also issued by his publishing house 

So cial e Rundschau, herausgegeben vom k.k. 
arbeitsstatistischen Amte. Monthly; 2 K. a year = 2 Mk. 
Einzelne Hefte = 20 H. = 30 Pf.**** 



Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI Printed from the original 



* Dr. Carl von Grabmayr (Landtag Deputy in Meran). The Debt Burden 
and Agrarian Reform. An Agrarian-Political Essay with Special Consideration 
of the Situation in Tyrol. — Ed 

** Agrarian Reform in the Tyrolean Landtag. — Ed. 
*** Statistical Monthly. Vienna 1901, New Series. Sixth year of publication 
(27th year of publication or the whole series). 

(Alfred Holder, bookseller to the imperial and royal court, and univer- 
sities, 13, Rothenthurmstrasse, Vienna.) — Ed. 

**** Social Surrey, published by the Imperial and Royal Labour Statistics 
Department. Monthly 2 kronen a year = 2 marks. Each issue = 20 hellers = 
30 pfennigs.— Ed. 



170 



CRITICAL REMARKS ON A. SOUCHON'S BOOK, 
PEA SANT PR OPER TY 78 



N.B. Souchon 

Note in Souchon 's book: 
Pages 

6. Small property (in the opinion of French social- 
ists) — without hired labour. 
12. Social value of peasant property — defen- 
(NB) ders of property 

^ ' '' 14. A factor of social conservation N.B. 
16. Safeguard against the urge for social innova- 
tions.... 

23. The small-farm regions are losing population 
more rapidly than the big-farm regions. 



And 
a reference 
to the 1892 
Inquiry! 79 



24. Figures on holders 

day labourers with land - 

day labourers without 
land 



1862 



1882 



1892 



— different 

from Bul- 

— the same , ga- 

as [ kov's 
— different 

from 

N.B.? N.B. 11.195-96 



25. 



39. 



The smallest holders are more inclined to move 
to the towns. 

Three main arguments in favour of large-scale 
production: 

(a) lower general costs — Con — (41) associations 



(b) more division of 
labour and use of 
machinery 



Con: machinery cannot 
always be used (43), 
disadvantages of the 
big: drop in the prices 
of corn (46) 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



171 



(c) more melioration, 

industries, etc. — Con: co-operatives (47) 

57. Both the large C C/ m>oder , J and, the small 
property are necessary CO 

57-58. There is a decline in the number of day labour- 
ers with land — con the theory of the importance 
of small holders as hired labourers. 

61. It is believed that there are 57. 4 % holders per 
100 plots. 

67. Holders with collateral employment (not day labour- 
ers) 

68. Peasant farm = 5-20 ha (< 5 h a can- 
not provide sustenance for a fam- 
ily: pages 68 and 69, note 2) 



N.B. 



72: 1,427,655- 
1,400,000- 
1,300,000- 



1,000,000- 
140,000- 



-agricultural labourers 

without land 
-agricultural labourers 

with land 
-small holders with 

collateral employment 

(cf. 71 and 67) 

(handicraftsmen, etc.) 
-peasants 

-big farmers (>20 ha) 
with hired labour 



ha 



7 million 

10 million 
23 million 



2= 



5,267,655 



40 



— minus 
state 
lands, 
etc.) 



79. Agricultural crisis — very uncertain thing. They 
have been shouting about it for 4 0 years. 

87. Since 1883, the number of land plots has been 
decreasing... 

— a tendency towards concentration. 



172 



V. I. LENIN 



88- 89 — The smallest holders move to the towns r 

89 — "Victims of concentration — the smallest < N.B. 
holders" 



92-93. The agricultural crisis should end soon. 

94. The number of agricultural machines has been 

growing very slowly, moderately. 
156-158. Allotments Act 80 — of small importance (not 

less or more than 1 acre, conditionally, etc.) 

163. Rentengiiter — created by the feudal party 

164. against the socialists 

exodus to the towns 
shortage of labour 
167— by 1896, 605 estates with 53,316 ha were broken up 
into 5,021 Rentengiiter 
1,088 2.5-5 ha 
1,023 5 -7.5 ha 
169. Facilitating the supply of labour (N.B.) 



Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



Printed from the original 



173 



CRITICAL REMARKS ON F. MAURICE'S BOOK, 
AGRICULTURE AND THE SOCIAL 
QUESTION. 
AGRICULTURAL AND AGRARIAN FRANCE* 1 

F. Maurice 

[Only paged through. The author has the wildest ideas 
of the most primitive anarchism. There are some interesting 
factual remarks.] 
Pp. Note 

48. Farmers complain.... Which farmers? 

small: 5 million— 12 million ha (N.B.) 
big 0. 869 -37 " 
85. (French) soldier's ration — 1 kg of bread 

300 grammes of meat 
160 " vegetables 
16 " salt 
15 " coffee 
21 " sugar 
117. 14,074,801 lots; 59. 3 % farms— consequently— 
8,346,000 holders (?) 

119. 188 2: 84. 7 % farms— 25.i% of the area 1 "Extreme" 
15.3% (868,000)— 74.9% (37.! mil- V concentra-(H) 

lion ha) J tion 

122. Distribution of rural population according to 1886 
statistics. 

122-123. Almost 720,000 absentee owners (Absenteeism). 
131-132. Small cropping can feed many more people. 



174 



V. I. LENIN 



160. From 1831 to 1886, the countryside gave up 

6 million persons to the towns. 
165. Rural population in 1851 and 188 6 

I" < number of holders ~| 
\ = " half-croppers [ N.B. 

I + " labourers J 

167. Permanent labourers in 1862 and 1882 (— ). [The 
figures are the same as Bulgakov' 's (6)] 

174. The growth of big towns from 1831 to 1886. 

194-195. The author favours social peace, "stability of 
our institutions", and is against "excessive indus- 
trialisation of agriculture" 

And he calls himself a socialist! Konfusionsrath!* 



195-197. Agriculture is now extensive (on big farms), yields 
little produce, etc. 

It should be small and intensive. 

197. Maurice's slogan: small property, small- 
scale production. 

197. The new (future) phase of agriculture is the "period 
of vegetable gardening" (author's italics) or "small 
cropping" (!) — the only possible outcome (!). 
The tendency in modern society is towards a 
coalescence of labour and property. 

198. How is this to be achieved? 

"Very easy" (!) — 
199 there is need for a reform — account must be taken 

of the current ideas prevailing among the masses — 

with individual property (!!) and the 

family (!!) 
200. "Gradual" supplanting of big farms. 
203. The right of every citizen to use the national 

territory must be proclaimed 



meaning, the nationalisation of land. 



Bungler.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



175 



204. 
205. 

234. 

278 



Initially state lands are to be leased to small farms 
— large land holdings to be taxed, 
etc 

(234-266) (!!)— draft law (!!) Casting of lots for 
land, etc. 

— Descriptions of separate departments. 
{The best thing in the book.} 



Nord. Beetroot production 
Intensified fertilisation. 



(287. staple crop.) 



1-10 ha: 
10-50 : 
50 and > 



32,000 
10,000 
690 



farms- 



-248,000 ha 
206,000 
53,000 



N.B. 



N.B. 



232 



140 

7 



Prevalence 
of (??) 
small 
cropping 

Farms: 

ha. Sugar refinery, etc. Model farm. Per ha: 30 
hectolitres of wheat "are not appreciably superior 
to those of the region" (p. 291) ??? (cf. Nord 2 4) 
50,000 kg of beetroot (cf. Nord 4 5,000) 
ha. 20 milch cows. 30 hi, 50,000 beetroot, 
ha. 6 milch cows. 25 hi, 40,000 beetroot (sic!) 
"With all the costs covered, and the family partly 
supplied with sustenance, the profit, rather, 
the wages, in this case, comes to between 



year (291). 
industry and 



mines, 
s e m i ■ 
n d u s ■ 
Impos- 



ts and 1,800 francs 
Great development of 

294. An entire population is 
agricultural and semi-i 
trial, with a plot of land, 
sible to survive on less than 5 ha, 

295. — pays for the cultivation of his land CO 
[Sometimes with his labour!] 

— fattens livestock for traders for a remuneration. 

296. Cultivation of beetroot with the aid of machinery. 
Child labour. 

— working for garment merchants 
in Lille (N.B.) N.B. 

(14-hour working day — per family (!) — 

1-1 y 4 francs). 

297. The condition of the rural labourer is rather hard.... 
Meat on Sundays.... Poverty.... 



176 



V. I. LENIN 



298-299. Growth in the number of small holders doing hired 
labour. 

Maurice's "moral": 

"there is danger" in industrialising agriculture 
(beetroot), 

"it is a mistake" (308) to regard agriculture as 
an industry, etc., etc. There is need to develop 
small-scale production!! etc. 
309. A i s n e. Big cropping prevails — in contrast to 
Nord. 

Worse soil, lagging agriculture. 



315. farms ha 

< 1 ha 29,000 14,000 

1- 10 22,000 94,000 

10- 50 7,000 169,000 
50-100 991 1 

100-300 1,016 [ 404,000 
300 and > 69 J 



320. Growing production of beetroot. (Idem 316) 

322. The labourers are highly dissatisfied ("not much 

better than serfdom"!) 

... meagre pay and food.... 
340. Nor is the condition of the labourer better in 

Picardie or in Beauce 



Vegetable gardening in the 
suburbs of Paris ... of 
28,000 ha ... 1,800 ha are 
vegetable gardens divided 
into 10,000 enterprises.... 
From 1,000 sq. m. to 1 ha 
(344). ... 



farms ha 
< 1 ha 11,000 5,000 

1- 10 2,600 1 
10- 50 290 I 
50-300 13 [ 
300-500 2 J 



23,000 



28,000 



Vegetable gardeners mostly lease land at 
2,000 fr.... 

345. — — Gross receipts from 1 ha = 20,000 fr. 

(working capital 25,000 fr.) 

net income = 10,000 fr. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



177 



345. Labourers per ha husband and wife 

(entrepreneurs) — 2 
f Wages and keep = f3 labourers, men — 3 
I 6,000 fr. J 2 girls —2 

1 day labouring 

woman — 1 (for 

sum- 
mer) 

Normandy 

358. The very small holders go in for wage labour. 
361. — For a minority Normandy is a "rich country", 

but for the mass of peasants, it is "harsh and 

inhospitable'" .... 

375. Vegetable gardeners near Cherbourg (sale of cabbage, 
etc., to Britain). Land costs 15,000-20,000 fr. 
(1 ha). 

376. Farms from 1 to 10 ha.... 

(N.B.) Each ha needs 2-3 men labourers (300- 
500 fr.) and Maurice is jubilant: "small cropping"! 

Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



178 



REMARKS ON 
A. CHLAPOWO-CHLAPOWSKI'S BOOK, 
AGRICULTURE IN BELGIUM 
IN THE 19 TH CENTURY* 2 

From Chlapowo-Chlapowski. 
Gainfully employed population in Belgian agriculture 

Members of „ ■ , * , ™ , , 

families taking ^esmde and Total 
part in farminl da y labourers (both sexes) 



1846) 906,575 177,026 1,083,601 

1880) 982,124 217,195 1,199,319 

1895) 1,015,799 187,106 1,204,810 

+1,905 Hofbeamte** 



Ibidem 69-71 — "modern" large-scale production 

71-72. Parcel holders as labourers of big farmers. 
99-10 0. Idem (N.B.) 

102. Competition between small and big farms. 
137. Growth of parcel holders = labourers. 
139. Plight of rural labourers. 

Idem 145-146. 
144. More intensive work done by 

small farmers. (N.B.). 



* Farm-hands.— Ed. 
** Farm employees.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



179 



148. Elevation of labourers to small holders. 
148. Relations between small and big farmers. 
(Support.) 

Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



180 



REMARKS ON THE MATERIAL 
OF THE BADEN INQUIRY 83 

Erhebungen uber die Lage der Land- 
wirtschaft im G r o s s h e r z o g t h u m Baden* 

1883. Karlsruhe. 

(Three big volumes, rather 4, because to the 3rd is append- 
ed Ergebnisse der Erhebungen.** 

A number of monographs on separate communities, 
followed by results. Very many budgets.) 

Volume 1. Note (after paging) 

Sandhausen community (Heidelberg district) Vol. I, 
VIII*), p. 30 [Vol. I, VIII* (community)]. 
Budgets. Big peasant. 9. so ha. 1 farm-hand +1 maid + 
379 days of hired labour. 

Small peasant. 2. 96 ha (1. 6 2 ha his own + 
1.36 leased) 

raises tobacco and hops. 

10 man-days (hired day labour). 

[with tobacco and hops l'A working days of labour should 
be reckoned per are. Consequently, total = 370 days, 
husband —300 Total receipts = 2,032. 32 

wife — 60 370.! Outlays 1,749. 91 

day labourer — 10 282. 41 



*) The description of each community is a special issue 
with its own pagination. That is why references must 
include volume and community: Vol. II, XI — Xlth commu- 
nity in Volume II. 



* A Study of the State of Agriculture in the Grand Duchy of Baden. — Ed. 
** Results of the Study.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



181 



ibidem 

Day labourer= small leasehold farm. 

2. 30 ha 12. 6 ares of own land 16 working days of 
217. 2 " of leased land hired labour. 

a total of 229.8 ares 1 3 A working days per are. 

Gross receipts — 1,5 4 3. 50 f 16 — day labourer 

outlays— 1,4 72. 5 8 2 = 410 work- \ 300— husband 

+ 70.30 ing days L 94 — wife 

Ergebnisse , pp. 56-57. The per-head consumption of meat 
on big-peasant and middle-peasant farms. 

Everywhere (8 examples) it is much higher 
on the big farms. 

Volume II. II, XI community, p. 48. 18 ares of tobacco 
require 80 working days. 

[The whole Baden Inquiry is a study of 37 typical com- 
munities. In the Ergebnisse, there are the most detailed, 
incredibly detailed, budgets (70), the main results of which 
are given in the table I have borrowed. 

Of interest in the Ergebnisse is Anlage VI: "Uebersicht- 
liche Darstellung der Ergebnisse der in den Erhebungs- 
gemeinden angestellten Ertragsberechnungen" (S. 149-65).* 
This is a tabulated summing up of the budget (and 
economic) data on the separately described households. 
(37 + 33 = 70 budgets.) 

31 big peasants (or farmers) 
21 middle peasants 
18 small peasants (including one 

wine-grower). 

70 

In the Ergebnisse [I have only paged through the Ergeb- 
nisse, but not the material (Vols. 1-3) itself, for the essence 
is given in the budget table, and there is no time to make 
a special study of them] one is struck by the indiscriminate 
nature of the conclusions: the big, middle and small peas- 
ants are not discriminated systematically anywhere in the 
results either; it is always "in general", e.g., even on the 



See extract of data on 
these 70 budgets in 
notebook 84 



* Appendix VI: "Brief Review of the Results or the Assessment of 
Incomes in the Investigated Communities". — Ed. 



182 



V. I. LENIN 



question of consumption. A comparison is made of the 
communities , and not of the big, medium and small enter- 
prises. (E.g., pp. 55-56.) 

This table (on 1873 data) appears on p. 21 of the Ergeb- 
nisse. 

Number of 



I "mixed" en- 
terprises (of 
"day labourers 
and artisans") 

II small-peasant 
enterprises 

III middle-peas- 
ant enter- 
prises .... 

IV big-peasant 
enterprises 

V large (among 
them big- 
peasant) en- 
terprises . . . 



agric. 
enterprises 



0-10 Morgen 
(0-3. 6 ha) 

10-20 Morgen 
(3. 6 -7. 2 ha) 



20-50 Morgen 
(7. 20 -18 ha) 

50-100 Morgen 
(18-36 ha) 



VI 



Community land, 
etc 



100-500 Morgen 
(36-180 ha) 

500 and 
over (180 ha 
and over) 



160,581 



38,900 



18,346 



3,721 



1,177 
21 



72. 0 
17. 5 

8-3 
1-6 

0-5 
0-01 



Area 
ha 



227,213 
193,923 

193,936 
90,152 

65,671 
5,542 

21,000 



% 



28. 



24.. 



24. 



11.. 



8.4 
0-6 

2.« 



222,746 100 797,597* 100 

Collateral employment — handicraft industries (Gorwihl, 
Wittenschwand, Neukirch) (p. 43) 
lumbering 
day labour 

factory work, stone quarries, etc., etc. 
There is also seasonal outside earth moving and lumbering 
(p. 45 from Neusatz). 

In Neukirch, 40 ha is considered to be a minimum area 
for subsistence. P. 44. o 

It is interesting to note concerning data and £** (see 
tables in notebook): ^ 



* There is an error of addition in this column (should be 797,497).— Ed. 
** " — average annual profit per ha (marks); ^ — permissible limit of taxa- 
tion of estate, together with debt, as % of its taxable capital value. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



183 



With the big and middle peasants, whose holdings come 
to 7-10 ha in the corn areas and 4-5 ha in the commercial 
crop and wine-making areas ... (and to 20-30 ha when 

there are forests) ... the results of calculations (" |j) are 

not bad (p. 66).... Here, there is no danger in having a 40- 
70 per cent, average 55 per cent, debt. 

By contrast, the conditions for the small peasant popula- 
tion are taking on a less favourable shape, i.e., ... for those 
with 4-7 ha under cropping, 2-4 ha under commercial crops 
and wine-making ... up to 30 ha under forests. 

For these small peasants, the average limit of permissible 
indebtedness lies ... in all respects much lower than should 
be established for the middle and big peasants. 

...For the estates of these sizes, with an average family 
and in the pure corn areas, the limit of indebtedness... 
must not exceed 30 per cent of the assessed value of the 
holding if the regular payment of interest and of instalments 
is to be fully secured... (p. 66). 

The above-given statistics, consequently, confirm 
the widespread opinion that those owners of peas- 
ant holdings, who are on the borderline [in the 
middle] between the day labourers and the middle 
peasants [in the rural districts the farmers of this 
category are usually called the "middle estate" — 
Mittelstand], are frequently in a worse position 
than those in the groups above and below in size 
of holdings; for, although they are able to cope with 
moderate indebtedness, if it is kept at a certain 
and not very high level, they find it difficult to 
meet their obligations, being unable to obtain 
regular collateral employment (as day labourers, 
etc.), by which means to increase their income.* 
They can meet their obligations only when their 
children have grown up and are placed, so that 
family expenses are less of a burden on these small 
farms. By contrast, day labourers (or handicraftsmen) 
with small holdings, insofar as they have some 
regular collateral employment, are frequently in 



See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 187-88.— Ed. 



184 



V. I. LENIN 



a much better position materially than those belong- 
ing to the "middle estate", for, as computations 
in numerous cases have shown, collateral employ- 
N.B. ment at times yields such a high net (i.e., money) 
income as to enable them to repay even large 
debts*; this explains the frequently observed 
fact that where such conditions obtain, small 
holders, like day labourers and others, gradually 
manage to take small-peasant holdings out of debt. 
These computations also show that it is the rural 
owners, who belong to the lowest sections of the 
independent peasant population, that have most 
reasons to make cautious use of their credit, which 
is why they have to make an especially careful 
review of their financial possibilities when buying 
any real estate (pp. 66-67). 

Data for communities also prevail on the question 1 
of indebtedness. J 
Cf. especially p. 97: "The final conclusion [on the question 
of indebtedness]: relatively less favourable position of the 
smaZZ-peasant population." 

The study of indebtedness by groups of holdings has 
shown: 

Almost everywhere ... it has turned out that it is the 
lowest groups of holders (day labourers with a land allot- 
ment) that have the highest percentage of indebtedness, and 
that, on the contrary, this proportion markedly declines 
for the peasant population proper, and in general tends to 
drop with the growth of the estates in size, sometimes very 
rapidly indeed, frequently disappearing almost entirely in 
the higher groups (big-peasant holdings) (p. 89). 

In the final count, the studies of debt levels in the commu- 
nities concerned give the following picture on the strength 
of these data: 

Almost everywhere, there is a very considerable debt 
burden on the holdings of day labourers. Nevertheless, this 
part of the debt is the least dangerous (p. 97) — for this 
section of the rural population relies mainly on earnings 
not from the land, and experience shows that, given regular 
earnings ("to any extent"), day labourers manage to cope 

* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 188.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



185 



with their debts (which mostly arise from the purchase of 
land). 

The debt on holdings among middle and big peasants in 
the overwhelming majority of the communities studied, 
even in those which are considered heavily in debt, remains 
within the limits marked out by the size of estates, and 
such debt is very small in a rather large number of communi- 
ties, to be found in all economic areas.... 

On the other hand, in a considerable number of the 
communities studied, the indebtedness of the small- 
peasant population is relatively larger and not entirely 
safe, considering the permissible limit of indebtedness, 
and in view of the fact that this higher indebtedness 
should ultimately be due largely to definite external 
conditions... (p. 97) (land, climate, land hunger, etc.), 
the same thing may be assumed for the country's 
other communities. 

This indebtedness is the result mainly of credit for land 
(purchase of land and transfer of estates). 

...in purchasing land, particular business-like 
caution must be exercised — something to which 
most study reports point — primarily by the small- N.B. 
peasant population and by the day labourers 
ranking next to it (p. 98). 

The small peasant sells relatively little for cash, but he 
stands particularly in need of money, and 

...because of his lack of capital, he is especially hard hit 
by every murrain, hailstorm, etc.* 

Written in June-September 1901 

First published in 1932 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



* See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 188.— Ed. 



186 



REMARKS ON M. E. SEIGNOURET'S BOOK, 

ESSAYS ON SOCIAL AND AGRICULTURAL 
ECONOMICS^ 

M. E. Seignouret, Essais d'economie sociale et agricole, 
Paris 1897. (p. 232 et seq.) — in one of the essays he makes 
a comparison between small, big and medium wine-growing 
(1869 — Gironde Agricultural Society) farms 



fictitious example N.B. 



I. small 1 ha 60 ares — works himself and family only 
II. medium 10 ha 25 ares — himself and family and one 

labourer (ploughman helper) 
+ day labourers 
III. big 51 ha 25 ares — does not work himself. Senior 

servant 1, ploughmen- servants 
(3) and wine-growers (6-7) 
at settled wages 



To I: it takes working days: 



Value of property 

Vineyards 

Other land 

House 

Implements and livestock 



250 male + 200 female 



f 50 male + 50 female 


I 


I remain 


for day labourers J 


small 


medium 


big 


fr. 


fr. 


fr. 


4,800 


24,000 


110,000 


900 


10,500 


55,000 


1,000 


2,000 


18,000 




1,000 


4,000 



2=6,700 2=37,500 2=187,000 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



187 



Outlays small 

4% 268 

taxes and prestations 36 

Vine-props 25 

Vine 15 

Manure 40 various 

expenses 

Vine 15 

Straw 16 

Transportation 15 

House repairs 15 

Fire insurance 4 

Repair of barrels, etc. . 10 

+ 30 

Grape gathering (No. 1) 20 



medium 

1,500 

190 
120 
70 

.125 shoeing 
+ 33 of cattle 
and re- 
payment* 

70 

fertiliser 



+ 



45 
10 
130 
60 
250 



big 

7,480 

805 
550 
350 



+' 



350 
400 

200 
30 
150 

2,000 



wages +^g7 + 



1,170 
2,450 



250 male days at 2. 25 =562 300 male 

days 
2.25=675 

200 female days at 0. 75 = 150 250 fem. 

days 
0.75 = 187 



2 = 1,210** 2 = 4,182 



more wages = 1,350 
cane 

rush 210 
% —215 
various= 625 



2 = 18,510 



(No. 1) Payment or compensation for several days of work 
by men or women, purchase of food, estimated at 20 fr. 
p. 241). 



* In this column, Seignouret says: "Veterinary insurance of animals or 
loss of their value is more considerable than with a small holder". — Ed. 

** In the listing of outlays for the small farm, there is an omission 
of interest — 4 fr. — Ed. 



188 



V. I. LENIN 



Receipts small 
4 barrels of wine at 240 = 960 



18 l h barrels 
at 250 = 4,625 
from land— 732 



medium 



75 barrels 
at 275 = 20,625 
90 hi. of wheat 



big 



= = 2,250 

receipts = 5,357 the rest from 
l and= 655 

2 = 23,530 

Balance— 250 Balance +1,175 Balance +5,020 
In other words 

Receipts = 960—198 = 462 
(498 =1,210—562—150) 
day labour 

50 male days at 2.25 = 112.50 
50 fem. days at O.75 = 37. 50 



612 



and as senior servant 
(labourer) 
he would have had 840 francs. 



Written in June-October 1901 

First printed in the Fourth 
Russian edition 
of the Collected Works 



Printed from the original 



189 



FROM GERMAN AGRARIAN STATISTICS 86 

((pp. 1-20)) 

Number of farms using machinery in 1882 



1882 





Steam 


Sowers*) 


Mowers 


Steam 


Other 


2 




ploughs 




threshers 




<2 


3 


4,807 


48 


4,211 


6,509 




2- 5 


7 


4,760 


78 


10,279 


23,221 




5-10 


6 


6,493 


261 


16,007 


51,822 


74,589 


10-20 


18 


9,487 


1,232 


18,856 


86,632 


116,225 


5-20 


24 


15,980 


1,493 


34,863 


138,454 


190,814 


20-100 


92 


22,975 


10,681 


17,960 


115,172 


100 and > 


710 


15,320 


7,334 


8,377 


15,011 






836 


63,842 


19,634 


75,690 


298,367 





These are apparently the machines taken on p. 5 of these 
extracts* for comparison with 1895 (the number of cases 
of use of five agricultural machines). Here are the 1907 
data on these same machines (number of c a s e s of use): 

190 7 <2 ha 131,489; per 100 farms of group = 3. 8 

2-5 313,641; " " " " = 31. 2 

5-20 968,349; " " " " = 90. 9 

20-100 469,527; " " " " =179.! 

100 and > 64,098; " " " " = 271. 9 



2 = 1,947,104 



33. f 



*) A reduction in the number of farms using sowers in 
1895 is allegedly due (p. 36*) partly to the fact "dass die 
Landwirte jetzt an Stelle der Saemaschinen die Drillmaschi- 
nen in Gebrauch genommen haben".** 

*See p. 194. ~Ed. 
** "That farmers now use seed drills instead or ordinary sowers".— Ed. 



190 



V. I. LENIN 



CO 
CD 

CD 
T3 
Pi 
f3 

Pi 
C3 



f3 
Pi 

cd 

^3 

O 
to 

•i-H 

Sh 
CD 
Pi 

?H 

:c3 



co 
en 

e 

en 

50 
en 

S-H 

CD 
T3 
Pi 
S3 

Pi 

<H 

o 

Pi 
o 

pi 

a 
+i 

CO 

• rH 

CD 



5 
O 

2 



Forests in 
1907 
ha 


514,279 


654,607 


2,121,024 


2,186,484 


2,203,360 


7,679,754 


Their 
forests 
ha 


413,033 


546,860 


1,850,277 


2,197,830 


2,574,276 


7,582,276 




10 


<M 
OS 


0 

T — 1 


t- 


00 
00 


CO 

c- 


^* 


tH 
CN 


d 


CN 
10 




CD 


Farms 
with 
forest 


147,777 


222,749 


400,557 


146,997 


13,754 


931,834 


Land 
under 
vegetable 
ha 


99,034 


50,420 


79,154 


57,091 


43,642 


329,341 


a? 


CO 




10 
0 


(N 
O 


CN 
O 


10 

CD 




d 


d 


d 


d 


CD 


Including 
vegetable 
gardens only 


367,402 


1,387 


CO 
CO 

10 


CO 
OS 




369,399 


Their total 
area 


2,415,914 


4,142,071 


12,537,660 


13,157,201 


11,031,896 


43,284,742 


Total farms 


3,236,367 


1,016,318 


998,804 


281,767 


25,061 


5,558,317 




ha 








A 






Under 2 


■ 


5-20 


20-100 


100 and 





CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



191 



These data show that there is concentration even in 
vegetable gardening, but its scale defies definition. 

The forests are concentrated on the big farms (> 20 ha — 
4.77 million ha out of 7. 58 , that is, over 60%). 

Taking all the forests (and not only those connected with 
agriculture) we find that 953,874 farms have 13,725,930 ha 
of forest and 30,847,317 ha of all the land. Almost half these 
forests (6,733,044 ha out of 13. 7 million, that is, 49. 05%) 
is on farms with 1,000 ha and over. 

There are special data on the concentration of truck 
gardening (Kunst-und-Handelsgartnerei="h.oihoxise indus- 
try", etc.?): 



Their land Average land 

per farm 





00 

6 










Farms by 
size of truck 


o 










gardens 


Number 


a? 




garden 


s« 


Under 10 ares 


7,780 


23.91 




344 


1-40 


10-50 ares 


13,724 


42.it' 




3,230 


13. 70 


50 ares-1 ha 


5,707 


17-54. 


.59. 71 


3,677 


15-60 


1 ha- 2 ha 


3,397 


IO.44 




4,208 


IV. 85 


2 ha- 5 ha 


1,441 


4-43" 




3,987 


16-9* 


5 ha and > 


491 


1-61. 


• 5.94 


8,124 34.47 



-a 

0 

a 



T3 



CD 

a ^ 

bo O 



■29.30 



17,313 0. 04 2. 2 

56,519 0. 24 4.! 

77,945 0.64 13-6 

162,277 1. 24 47.7 

157,934 2. 76 109. 6 

51-39 

66,119 16. 54 134.7 



Total 32,540 100.oo 23,570 100. 0 o 538,107 0. 72 16. 5 



Cf. David, p. 152, 40%— under 20 ares 



192 



V. I. LENIN 



Weinbaubetriebe: 
Farms with vineyards 













Area 








Their 


land 


per 
holder 


Size of 
vineyard 


.mber 
farms 




leyards 


a 

cd a 


leyards 
ler 




S5 o 


a? 




"S a 


.13 53 
> o 


Under 10 ares 


88,362 


25.63 


4,962 3.94 


221,340 


0-05 2.5 


10-20 ares 


81,936 


23-76 


11,399 9.04 


258,756 


O.44 3.4 


20-50 ares 


103,777 


30.Q9 


32,179 25. 51 


371,357 


O.34 3.5 


50 ares-1 ha 


47,148 


13.671 


31,407 24. 90 - 


| 201,888 


0-66 4.3 


1-5 ha 


22,542 


6-53 


,20.52 35,399 28.07 


61. 51 158,247 


1-57 7.0 


5 ha and > 


1,085 


0.32J 


10,763 8. 54j 


30,599 


9.92 28. 2 


Total 


344,850 lOO.oo 


126,109 lOO.oo 


1,242,187 


0-36 3. 6 



{49%-13%V 
30%- 26% > 
21%- 61% J 



Categories by size of farmland (landwirtschaftlich 
benutzte) area: 



Under 20 ares 
20-50 

50 ares-1 ha 

1- 2 ha 

2- 5 ha 
5-20 ha 

20-100 ha 
100 and > 



1,134.3 
4,476 
9,867 
20,794 
41,158 
37,649 
8,746 
2,285 



ha 



2=126,109 



vme- 
- yards 
36,271 



. Under 1 ha — 
1-10— 
10-50— 
50 and > 



15,477 
86,890 
19,015 
4,727 



2=126,109 



ha "I 102,367= 
"J 87.17% 

}l2. 83 % 



In France % % 

Under 1 ha 136-2 thousand ha 7.56 \ 

1-10 637-5 35. 42 J 42 -98 

10-40 467.9 25.9 8 \ 



1,800.5 lOO.oo 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



193 



The (relatively) large percentage of dependents in the 
100 and > group (0. 35 % and 0. 39 %) is due to the fact that 
only administrative personnel and supervisors have been 
included here among the dependents in agriculture, (p. 49*). 

Furthermore, in the 100 and > group, the A — C inde- 
pendents are mostly owners of forests, industrialists and 
traders. 



P. 47* 

1 = A 1 Independents 

2 = A 1 Dependents 

3 = A— C Dependents + D 

4 = A — C Independents 

5 = Other occupations 



Farms by main occupation %% 





1. 


2. 


3. 


4. 


5. 






Agricul- 


Agricul- 


Agriculture + 


Veg. 


Other 






ture 


ture 


industry + 


garden- 


occupa- 






indepen- 


depen- 


trade + local 


ing + in- 


tions 






dents 


dents 


industries 


dustry + 




2 








and other 


trade + 




% 








dependents 


other 














indepen- 














dents 






Under 2 ha 


17-43 


21-30 


50-ai 


22.53 


9-73 


100 


2- 5 


72-20 


2-48 


8 -63 


16-31 


2-86 


100 


5- 20 


90.79 


0-21 


l.U 


6-96 


1.14 


100 


20-100 


96.16 


0-05 


0-17 


2-52 


1-15 


100 


100 and > 


93. 86 


0-35 


0-39 


1-50 


4-25 


100 


Total 


44.9 6 


12-90 


31.08 


17-49 


6-47 


100 



2,499, 130 + (717,037) + 1,727, 703 + 971,934 + 359, 550 = 5, 558, 317 



Data on the percentage of independent rural owners with 
subsidiary employment clearly show the especially advan- 
tageous position of holders of 100 ha and > (their subsidiary 
employment = forestry, large-scale industry, agricultural 
industries, military and civil service, etc.). 



194 



V. I. LENIN 



Under 2 ha 




% of independent 


2- 5 


25.54 


farmers with sub- 


o- ZU 


15-26 


sidiary employment 


20-100 


8-82 




100 and > 


23-54 


(P. 48*) 




20. 10 





Independents 

A 2—6 31,751 

B 704,290 

C 1—10 130,682 

C 11—21 32,994 

C 22 72,217 

971,934 

+ 1,727,703 

Other occupations 359,550 

3,059,187 

+ 

A 1 2,499,130 



5,558,317 



Dependents 

A 1) 717,037 

A 2—6) 67,605 

B) 790,950 

C) 12,757 

C) 101,781 

C) 836 

D) 36,737 



1,727,703 



The use of machinery vastly prevails among the large 
farms (79% and 94% — as against 46% among the medium, 
and 14%-2% among the small) (p. 36*). 

The same is the case with machinery for dairy farm- 
ing (N.B.: p. 39*) (31%-3% among the large, 3%-l% among 
the medium, and 1 %-0. 0 2 % among the small). 

A comparison with 188 2: 



Steam ploughs: 



Mowers 



Steam threshers 



1882: 
1895: 



836 
1,696 



> 20 
ha farms 

802 
1,602 



+ 860 + 800 



total 

19,634 
35,084 



> 20 ha 

18,015 
27,493 



+ 15,450 + 9,478 



75,690 
259,364 



26,337 
62,120 



+ 183,674 +35,783 



19 0 7: 2,995 2,873 19 0 7:301,325 155,526 19 0 7:488,867 86,472 
(+1,299) (+1,271) 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



195 



The percentage increase in the number of farms using 
machines is naturally highest among the lower categories: 
the small magnitudes grow faster in percentages. 

(p. 36* + p. 39*) 



Farms Cases 
using of use 

machines of agric. 
in gen- machine 

eral per per 100 
100 farms farms 


t^see p. A) 
1907 


Cases of use of five 
agricultural machines 
per 100 farms 

1882 [FT 36*] 1895 


Under 2 ha 2. 03 2.30 
2- 5 13. 8 i 15-46 
5- 20 45.80 56.04 
20-100 78.79 128-46 
100 and > 94. 16 352. 34 




3-8 
31-2 

90.9 
179.1 
271.9 


°-50 1-59 + 1-09 
3-91 11-87 + 7.96 
20.59 43. 86 + 23. 27 
59.i 7 92.Q1 + 32. 84 

187.Q7 208. 93 + 21.86 


Total I6.36 22.36 


33.9 


8-68 16. 59 + 7.91 


5-10 ha 71.i 


13-5 32.9 


10-20 122.! 


31.2 60.8 



(cf. Deutsche Volkswirtschaft am 
Schlusse 19. Jahrhunderts, S. 51)** 



Concerning the comparison of the number of farms using 
various machines in 1882 and 1895, it should be borne in 
mind that small and medium farms make wide use only 
of threshers, and use very few other machines. 

Steam ploughs are being used (being introduced) only 
on the big farms. 

Seed drills 

are used by 18-57% of big farms 5% of 

medium farms 
Manure spreaders 3-37% " " 0. 2 % medium 
Separators 10-15% " " 4% medium 



*See p. 189.— Ed. 
** The German National Economy at the end of the 19th Century — Ed. 



196 



V. I. LENIN 



Then (N.B.) there is only a handful of cases in which 
farmers use their own and hired machinery. Hence, 
the concentration of machinery should be even greater. 



Also note on the concentration of livestock that in 1895 
the figures were taken for the whole of the Deutsches Reich. 



N.B. 



Without land 663 

Under 0.! are 663 

0. r 2 ares 76,223 

2-5 " 212,331 

5-20 " 748,653 

20-50 " 815,047 



agric. enterpr. 



Horned cattle 

They have 6,905 
4 

1,130 
4,986 
" 47,414 
" 176,987 



degeneration' 
and >: 



On the question of "latifundia 
(Bulgakov). Data on farms with 1,000 ha 
1895: 57 2 farms with 

802,115 ha cultivated farmland 

(2. 46 % against 2. 22 % in 1882) 
1,159,674 ha total area (2. 68 % against 2. 55% in 1882) 
including 

798,435 ha farmland proper 
3,655 vegetable gardens 
25 " vineyards 
298,589 " forests (25. 75 %) 



Waste and unsuitable land — 1. 72 % minimum of all 
categories. 



190 7: 3 69 farms with 6 93,656 ha total area 

including 497,973 ha farmland 

2,563 " vegetable gardens 

0 " vineyards 

145,990 " forests 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



197 



In [ ] data for 1907. 

Livestock kept — in general — by 97. 90 %; big cattle — 
97. 73 %; sheep— 86.01%; pigs— 90. 73 %, etc. Number of 
livestock: horses: 55,591 [42,502]; horned cattle: 148,678 
[120,754]; sheep: 703,813 [376,429]; pigs: 53,543 [59,304]; 
goats: 175 [134].* 

The use of agricultural machinery: in general — 555. 
Steam ploughs — 81 [120]; sowers — 448 [284]; manure 
spreaders — 356; mowers — 211 [328]; steam threshers — 500 
[337]; separators— 72 [137] + 140. (2 of cases of use of 
machines = 2,000.) 

Furthermore, of these (farms with 1,000 ha and >) linked 



with sugar refineries 19 

distilleries 228 

starch factories 16 

flour mills 64 

breweries 6 



2 = 330 (33,000 -^572) = 57. 7 % 
211 grow beetroot (26,127 ha) 

302 grow potatoes for distillation and starch-making 

21 have dairy trade in town (1.822 cows) 
204 take part in dairy co-ops (18,273 cows) 
20,400 -s- 572 = 35. 6 % 

Of 5 7 2 — 544 are independent landowners by main 
occupation 

(of 544 — 227 (42%) have no subsidiary employment 
317 (58%) have subsidiary employment) 
9 — main occupation: independent foresters, traders and 
industrialists. 
19 — other occupations. 

Without leased land — 63. 2 g% of these farms 
Leased land = 12. 56 % of their total area. 



See present edition, Vol. 5, p. 199. — Ed. 



198 



V. I. LENIN 



Prussia only 
1895: number of farms using separators 





Total 
farms 


Number 
using se 

with 
manual 
drive 


of farms 
parators 

with 
mechan- 
ical 
drive 


2 


19C 

Total 
farms 


7 

Number 
of farms 
using 
separa- 
tors 


No land 


— 


13 


11 


21 


— 


— 


Under 0^ are 


262 


— 


1 


1 


488 


— 


0.-1-2 


45,554 


7 


3 


10 


69,774 


10 


2-3 


146,672 


28 


12 


40 


206,958 


27 


5-20 " 


525,466 


147 


76 


223 


560,511 


128 


20-50 " 


520,236 


326 


56 


382 


515,114 


378 
















50 ares-1 ha 


410,944 


555 


83 


638 


385,867 


1,515 


1-2 " 


398 979 


1,415 


141 


1,556 


362 265 


7,606 
















2-3 


233,596 


1,618 


189 


1,807 


223,325 


11,828 


3-4 " 


163,126 


1,747 


317 


2,064 


166,117 


14,058 


4-5 


126,058 


1,697 


433 


2,130 


131,472 


14,991 
















5-10 


314,634 


6,137 


3,111 


9,248 


349,352 


58,347 


10-20 " 


214,095 


6,492 


4,565 


11,057 


233,808 


60,777 
















20-50 


155,539 


7,574 


4,575 


12,149 


147,724 


47,349 


50-100 


32,575 


2,279 


953 


3,232 


28,252 


8,506 
















100-200 " 


8,697 


876 


306 


1,182 


8,236 


2,330 


200-500 " 


8,050 


798 


589 


1,387 


7,871 


2,031 


500-1,000 " 


3,110 


307 


445 


752 


2,670 


899 


1,000 and > " 


533 


70 


132 


202 


340 


129 
















2 


3,308,126 


32,086 


15,998 


48,084 


3,400,144 


230,909 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



199 



00 

m tr~ CO 
^ CN O 

+ + + 



n-i ^ 



3 § oo 
« + 

2 + 

, | t*3 GO 

CO £ CO 



CS 

a 

'3 

CO^ 

g+ 

Eh CO 

eg 



o o 



01 ~ 



LO 

CO 



T — 1 T — I O 

^ ti d 



C- LO 

CO tH 

cm ©^ 

Os" CN 



rH © 

CO 

<n" co" 

CN tH 
CN CN 
CN tH 



CN OS 

tH CD 

CN t-^ 

r-T lo" 

O 00 

LO CO 



CO 

lo si 
°„ 
to" to 



+ 



CO O 

CO 

CO CO 
as" £5 
CO o 
CO 



CM CO 

Cn CO 

CN co 

CO o 



4=i 



OS CN 
CN CD 



oo LO 
OS © 



■H OS 

LO tH 

CN CO 

co" co" 

00 OS 

O tH 



CN CO 

L> O 

°°„ ^1 

co" CO 



o 

co" 



C- 00 

O LO 

CD tH 

o" C-" 

10 si 

CD °0 

LO" 



O CO 

GO 

t-„ CN 

Tt< LO" 

■* CN 



I I + + 



CN 00 
O lo" 

3 3 



00 

co lo^ 

L— " GO" 

CO CD 

-Cf tH 



CP 



© 

o 8 

<? © 

LO CN 



CO LO 
CN c» 

lo" cn" 

OS LO 
CD CD 

co" 



© CO 

LO ^-j 

co 

o" 

LO 3 

CD 

co" 



Sh 

o 

1 £ 



CM 
CO 
CO 



43 
bo 

CS 



Sh 

.s 

«M 

o 

Sh 
CD 

43 



CO 
CO 



11 + 11 



Tt< GO 
CM LO 
CD" 

o 

CO 



CO O LO 

~ © CN GO 

^1 CN 

lo" S lo" 

CN CN C~ 

C- CT3 CN 



CN 



LO 


[— 


CD 




LO 


o 


CD 


OS 


00 




<3 


OS 


t» 


CN 


CO 


lo" 


co" 


M<" 


as" 


M 1 " 


CN 


CO 


OS 




CN 


CO 




00 


CN 














43 











© 

LO CN 



p3 
1=5 



O 
O 



o 

CN 



S3 
O 

o 



1 

1 


CO 

1 

1 


CO 

1 

1 


1 


1 


1 

1 


CD 


CS 


CM 


GO 


O 


o 


Tf 


CO 


CD 


CD 




CD 


as 




CN 






o 




c~ 




cn 


cn 


^* 




as 


CD 


■H 


CN 


OS 


CD 




lO 


CN 


TP 




©' 




CO 


cn 


OS 


CN 






cn 


cn 


OS 
























* 




LO 


CO 


c~ 




© 




CO 


GO 


o 


CO 


co 




CO 


eo„ 




CD 


CO 




go" 


go" 


o" 


"*" 






tH 




CO 









CN 
CO 

t- 
co" 

LO 

CN 
CN 



LO LO 

++ 

us r- lo 
os r- cn 

C30 CN CO 



CO 

be 
f3 
O 



c3 



bJO 
PI 

f3 



o 

CD 



Pi 
Pi 

pi 
O 

O 



CN © 
OS t-H 



cd cd 

4=1 43 



© T3 
© 

^T 1 ca 
© © 

CN © 



200 



V. I. LENIN 



+ 



-3 

n 

cfl 



o 
si 



U5 
OS 
CO 



CO 
CO 



CM 



CS1 



10 

CD 



CO 
05 



CD 
05 



00 
03 



OS 
02 



05 



+ 



UO 
+ 



CM 
+ 



+ 



CM 
+ 



is* 

0 g 
to (JO 



«5 
ON 

CO 



CO 

00 



CO 
GO 



GO 



+ 



CO 



CM 



+ 



o 

+ 



o 

+ 



o 
10 



00 



o 

+ 



t3 



CP 

o 

-a 
a 

cfl 



o 
0 

(3 



CO 



CO 
CO 



CM 

00 



CO 

00 



cfl 
J3 



CP 
ES 



OS 
ID 



00 
CD 



o 

CM 



o 

CM 



o 
o 



o 
05 



A 

§ 

O 
O 



O 



CP 

is 



o 
o 

(3 



CP 

* 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



201 



^ 2 

El 

Sac's 
.9 « 
9 § 

£ 3 
s| 

o S 

|1 

"lb 

co a 
« S 

§ ° 

-e .-5 s 
be "3 

s § 

2 » 

o 



CD 
03 



3P 
S 

o 

03 



03 

*> 9 

CD . 

J* eg 



ft 
f3 
O 
Sh 
be 

03 



CD 



CD 
CO 
Sh 
O 

£ 

3 

03 
5h 
03 
ft 

9 

o 
o 

Pi 



CD 
Sh 
o3 



03 

9 

• i— i 

pi 

03 

■a 

03 
02 



03 

o 

CN 
CD 



tf t« J) 

as h 0 

° £ 



o 

be 
*3 



! ^3 

: g'S 

T3 as 



° b 

<4H 



o 

CM 



Q> O 

q r-„ 

t- tH 

+ + 



Q> CD 

©" o" 

CO CN 



OS CO 
CO CO 
©" t-T 
id co 



CO 


uo 


c~ 


CM 


CO 


C~ 


CO' 


CD* 




C- 




CO 


"CP 


o 




02 


co 


°l 


us 


CM* 


o 


02 


CD 


CO 






© 


© 


1 


CM 


U3 


I 

O 







CO 



CD c- 00 
TJH tH tH 



CD 



CO 00 
00 

CO t~ 
co" c— 
io 
CM 



o la 

d> OS 



OS 
CO 



CO 
00 



o 

Sh 



CO 

o 



CD 

rH 

be 
03 



ft 

f3 
O 
Ph 
be 

03 



CD 



o o 

+ + 



-a 

C3 



CM 

CO 
CO 



CO 



CO 



CN! 
CO 
CO 



o o 

+ I 



CM CD 



o o 

+ + 



Cft 
CO 



CO 
CO 



03 „ 

o o 
V ^ 

LO O 



202 



V. I. LENIN 



, — s co a 

e «S 8 

CM 



O 
OS 



o 



CD 



CD 

o 

03 



54H 

o 

CD 

co 
f3 

CD 

Pi 

o 

00 



o3 
Q 



a 
'£ 

CJ 

s 

CD 



bo 

a 



OS 
00 



J3 «^ g 



2 0 ~Z 

co s g » 



04^ ft 

^3 ° 



>H-a 

Q) » to 

-a fu sh 



1 s s 
® ft 0 

CO rH 



; » « 
2 g ^ 



i O 



00 
CD 
Oi 
us" 



CD 
CD 
CO 

us" 
CO 



CN co 



CO 
GO 



o 
o 



CO 
US 
CD 

cd" 

CD 



O 

CO 
GO 
CN 
US 



o 
o 

CD 



CO 
GO 
CM 



GO 
GO 
O 



US 

us 



us 

CM 



us c— 

OJ O 
°* C i, 
CD" CTi 
US ^ 



CD 
CD 
O 



C3 
CD 



CD 

cc 
co" 

CO 



CO 

us 



GO 
CM 
US 



o 

CD 



CO 
CO 

o 



CN 
CO 



CD O 

GO OS 

OS CN 

GO CN 



CN 

us 



£35 
CD 



CO 
US 
to 



US 



o 

CO 



CO 
CO 
CN 



9 

CN 
US 



CN 
CO 



CO 
CD 
CO 
OS 
CN 



CO 

cn" 



CO 
CO 



GO 

US 
co" 

CN 



o 

CO 



CN 

us 

a 

CO 



GO 
CO 
OS 

o 



CD 



CO 



US 
CD 



CD 
US 
CN 



GO 
CD" 



US 
CO 

us 



o 

S3 



r~ cd> 

CO CO 
^1 CO 

o 

CO 



<D cfi 

T3 ^a 



to 

I 

CN 



O 

CN 



O 
CN 



O 

o 



o 

CN 



CO 



OS 
CO 
US 
CN 



03 
CD 



CN 
CO 



oo 
us 
OS 
t-" 



oo 

CN 
CO 



CD 
CC 
CO 



us 

CD 
US 



US 
CN 
CO 



T3 
Pi 
C3 

O 
O 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



203 



O T — I 

© © 



CO GO t- T-j CO CO 
t — I t — 1 t"~ *^t* r — I t-H 

O tH (N LO O 



03 
A 

CN 

V 



O 
O 

o 

IO N J, 
i i o 
CN in CN 



a 

cS 
O 
O 



c- cn 

Oi lO 

© 'i, n 

as tji 
^ (D o 
■* ic 



CN O 

lO t~ to 
OS ^1 c~ 

^ 2 ra 
" CN 



S b 
10 A 



m 

CD 

Pi 

•i— I 

o 

03 



o 

CD 
CO 

f3 

=4-1 

o 

02 

CD 

co 
o3 
o 



CM 
CO 
Oi 

CO 



03 
o 

CD 
ft 
02 



CD 
> 
O 

03 



02 

fH 
O 
+3 

03 
u 
03 
ft 

CD 
02 



03 

•i— I 

O! 
02 

f3 

S-4 

Ph 

o 



03 

CD 
CD 



CD 
03 



-3 

CD 

Pi 

• 1— I 

o3 

S-4 

CD 
CD 
02 

03 

CD 



CD <d 
O 

1 3 

03 tTj 

^ fl 

CD O 

as cj 

*> ^ 



f3 
O 

cj 

02 
?H 
O 
■*^> 

03 
Sh 
03 
ft 

CD 
02 

Pi 

03 

02 
5h 
O 
+i 

03 
> 



S-4 
O 
=4-1 

t3 

CD 
o3 

S-l 

CD 

bs) 
bn 
o3 
X 

CD 



>> 

S-l 
O 

cj 
f3 

O 

S-l 



1? ^ 
K. (T) 

o ^ 



i 1 CD CD 

CO r^n bD 

2 H S 

'■S«2 g 
£ S » 

CD a2 ® 

-IS 

t-st 



S CD 
^ Sh 
CD CD 



^ -Pi 

2 « 

i-S 03 



02 " 

to CD 

CD 03 

bD 2 

02 . ^ 

>^ 

P CD 



> k 

CD 

^ 8 

t-l cu 



=+h 

CJ 



S-4 

03 



03 



S-l 
O 
ft 

CD 

S-l 
=4-1 

o 

CD 

"> 

CD 

S-l 



02 CD 
Sh *h 
O 03 

03 02 

Sh ?H 

03 O 

CD 03 
CO 

03 



O 

'Oi CD ft 

CO 

ri CD »» 

+3 ^ •* 
a§*> 

O jj^ 

Sh * g 
03 r^J 

ft 

o w 

Pi t, 
<^ 03 K", 

CD CD .2 

pQ^I *» 
3 o « 

* „ N 

cu 

* g ** 



CD 
03 

cj 

13 

o 

Pi 

CD 
CD 

CO 

o3 



£ -.2 o 



o 



£ A 03 ^ 

CD 03 gr^ 

.9 pi 



03 
cr 1 



S 03 S 

u 02 

2* § 

O . Si 

be ft e 5 

Sh w 

■ x S 

02 CD ft 



03 

=4-1 
=4-1 

o 

rH 

CD 



f3 

Pi 

CD 

=4-1 

o 



^3 

I 



CD 
CD 

00 
* 



204 



V. I. LENIN 



o o o 
© o o 

to t- ra 



C3 



& O CO 
CO a _d 

A O 



o 
o 

oo 

GO 



■sl 



CO 
Oi 
CO 



o 



o 
o 
o 



o in o a> 
N 

O n_ ■* io 
CD <N 



cS 
A 

CM 
U0 
CD 



o 
o 

CD 

05 
CO 



05 
CO 



5h 

CP 



cs 
43 



CD 5 



5 ^ - 

S a' 

I — II — I 

M H K 



cs 



o 

Pi 

a3 
co 
f3 
O 



CO 

A 

o 
pi 



o 

CO 
03 

Pl 

03 

EE 

f3 
O 



f3 
O 

03 





c£ 




CO 


[- 




CD 


CO 










O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CO 


co 


co 


ao 




of 


CO 




CO 









pq 



cb 55 

O ~C 

•§ .1 

■■-i CO 



■-t3 o 

o3 Pi 
03 

K ^ 



o 

CO 
ft 

f3 
O 

bo 



cc 
ft 
P 
O 

bo 



ft S 
o S 

Ph 

bo o 



3^ 



CO 



o 



gco 
3 J 



03 



cc 



<4— i ■"C 

CO 
CO 

03 
o 

bo 
=S 
O 
Sh 



u 3 
cu 

CO £ 
XI 

03 CD 
CO CD 

co O 



CO 

fH 

CD 
CD +3 

S ft 

XI 

o o 

£ ° 
fto 
ft - 

03 00 

Pi°° 
CD +a 
> 03 , 

e pi 
o 

CD 

M ^ 
03 03 
CD 



o 

CO 



03 

o 
o 

CS 



0 

o 

03 
CD 

> 

03 

[- 
CO 



CO 
CD 

Pi 

03 



.2 o 

> . 

pi 0 

•i-H 

CO 



O 

|| to 

O cd" 
O Th 
CO ^ 

" is 



CO 



2 A 



Pi 

03 
CD 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



205 



to 

CD 

to 

•i— I 
S-H 
Ph 

Pi 

0) 



CO 

• 1— I 
be 
Pi 

• 1— I 

O 

CD 



cd 



5h 

o 

CD 



f3 



*0 
Oi 
00 



S3 

-a 



cs 



O CN Oi 00 LO 

lo cm co as lo 

CO C7> Tji O CM 



!D N ID CO 

t- CD t- a) OJ 
t- N CO ^ 



m> cm oo en co 

CO * LO H IN 
O CO GO 



co as 

tH CD 



LO 2 



CO L— 

C» 00 

o" co" 
<N 



tH LO 00 ^ LO 
CM CD CN ic O 

1 — ' ^ 1 — ' L>* CTi 



^ co ai in cs 

CO 00 CN C- tH 
CO CO c- 



^ en co 

ID CO CO 
tH cd 



00 CD 



CO 
CD 



to S8 
O *~ lo 



CO 
CN 



LO 

r- _ 

°° 55 

lo" 
CN 



CN 

5 



CO S< 



CO 




CO 








CD 
- rH 

5h 




rie 








CD 




o 








(3 


CO 




en 






CD 


rie 


fac 




!» 
CD 




5h 


CD 




s 






Sh 




A 




CD 




C3 

bo 


+-> 


rc 








CO 


ca 


o 


CD 


+^ 












o 


CO 


Q 


CO 




PQ 


H 



cn co lo 



oo 

LO 
LO 



T — I 

CD 
CO 

lo" 

(N 



CD 



00 
CN 



o 

c» 

oo" 
OS 



00 
CO 

co" 
o 



CD 

co 
cd" 

CO 
CN 
co" 



o 



o 



co 
co 

LO 



CD 



LO 

co" 

CO 



TP 
co 

CO 

o" 

CN 



o 

CD 
CD 



r3 

CO 

T3 .5 



"lo 



rQ 



CD 
Sh 

o 

GO 
• i— I 

CD 



> 

o 
Jap 



CD 



206 



V. I. LENIN 



CD 



Sh 

03 






o 










a 






CD 




CD 


he 


-o 


+j 




pi 




o 


si 


-a 




CD 


3 


cc 


o 


'o3 




m 


(30 


o3 


CO 






s 






oe 


a 




03 




O 


CD 




-a 




an 


e 


+j 


o 


o 




o 


Q 


Sh 


-+-^ 






CD 


a 


be 


"53 


cd 


CD 


th 


-si 






o 






CD 


M 






Q 


r-Q 


CD 


CD 






CD 


EH 


H3 



be 


ea 


he 


p. 


i 




O 
Pi 


CC 
CD 


es. T 


e far] 


CD 




CD 


,JH 


o 








rH 

03 
CD 


rH 

o 


potal 


Pi 

o 


ref 




rH 




cc 






CD 




rH 


CD 
Sh 




> 




cc 


CD 


tal 


o 


Eh 


CD 


T3 


3, 


r*! 




rH 


Pi 




o 


03 




2 


pi 






be 



* B 
o b 



°'S'".2 o bo 

rn on -tJ ^ d 

0) w D cc C5.H 

85 £ §.-3 S 



« 5 

^ ^ -r= H 

^* =| cu a 



as 



0 r£ 



CD 
LO 



CO 
CM 

o 



CO 
OS 
CN 



O 

CM 



LO 




CN 



03 
LO 



00 



CO 

cd 



oo 



rc 



-a 



CO 


lO 


CO 


CN 








CD 






CD 


CN 






to 




CN 




CN 
























o 


A 






o 






O 


tH 


a 


m 


CN 
i 


i 

o 


cS 


CN 


LO 


CN 


o 



CO 
CM 

o 



CN 
CN 

oo 

CO 



o 
o 



CO 


CN 


O 


OJ 


tH 


00 


CN 


00 


CN 


t-^ 


°°„ 


CN 


oo" 


t> 


co" 


CD" 




Oi 


CO 


05 






CN 


CO 






00 


CO 






Ol 


o 






00 


CN 






CN 





CN 



CN 




LO 


CD 


c~ 




oo" 




tH 


CN 


ca 




r=S 




o 


o 


tH 
1 


CN 
I 


LO 


o 







CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



207 



m 02 

O ^3 
fit 

2 o 
«.S 

cr 1 tc 

Pi tH 

O 



bo cs 

.3 0 

tS be 



« o 

.15 o 

fa n 
o 



6 ^ S 



S O 

2; o 



55' 



is 

o 

o 



5 S 

55 



6 

o o 



Z o 



TO 

J3 o 



o 

88 e 



1 



o 

EH 



CN CO OS 



cd cd 

LO LO 

op" £5 



CD 
CO 
CN 



CO 
CD 

lo 

a 



LO 
CO 

CD 
CO 



O CO lO LO 



LO 
CO 



o 
o 

CO 



05 CD 
LO «5 
to" 

LO 



LO 

o 

00 



CO 



T — I 

d cd 

tH CO 



CO lO (D CI CO 

N t- H 5J H 

O N ffl >J CN^ 

lo" ©" p oo" 

cq co c- io 



CO 



00 OS Tji CD CO 

01 C- CD 
05 0_ TO CD^ 00 
oo" lo" LO 



00 
CN 



cn c- oo c- 

0 0)010) 



CD 
TO 



OO 
CO 



CD CD 
TO 

CN °„ 

to" ^ 



o 

CO 

oo" 
OS 



t— 

CD 

oo 

CM 



CD 
q 

LO 

CN 











A 


ha 


LO 


O 

CN 


O 

o 

1 


and 


cn 

V 


1 

CM 


i 

LO 


o 

(N 


o 
o 

T — 1 



CD 
■* 
OS 

CN 

oo 
o 



CN 

00 

q 

oo" 



00 
CN 



O 

TO 
OS 



CD 
LO 



TO^ 

oo" 

LO 
LO 



HcOCSQOCO 
rH TO TO 



CD ;H CD OS LO 
CN CO CN 



O) « iO c- to 

O GO O Tf 



TO CN 



rH CD CD TO CN 
CN CN TO 



00 00 t- LO O 
LO ^ 



_ LO O O 
cd CN o CI 

CN CN LO O o 



o 

O 



O 
O 



O 
O 



O 
O 



O 
O 



208 



V. I. LENIN 



co 

a. 

53 
u 

CD 

tic 

a 



CO 

a 
o 

Q 

si 

CD 



ho 

Pi 



H-H 

>> 

fn 

• rH 

03 

o 
Pi 

o 

• rH 

■s 

fn 

t 
CD 
O 
Pi 

o 
o 

cu 

r^ 



Pi 

cd 

& 

CD 
CO 
Pi 

o 



co 

o 

O 

u 

ft 



03 

CD 
CD 

CCJ 



CD 

■s 

H-H 

o 

CD 

ho 

a 

'cj 

pi 

O 

fn 
ft 

CO 

s 



CD 

o 

_pj 

'o 

u 



CD 
> 
03 

r£ 



03 



O 
Pi 

CO 
CD 

o 

bC 

Pi 



fH 

03 

f, 
a 

O 
Pi 

o 

03 
fn 
h-J 

Pi 
CD 
O 
Pi 

o 
u 

CD 

r£ 



CD 
CO 
5h 
Pi 

o 
o 

o 



CD 

fH 

CD 

r£ 

bo 

pi 

o 

Pi 

CD 

O 
Pi 



a 

CD 
r, 

a 
>> 

Pi 

o 

•rH 

-|H> 

03 
cj 



CO 
CO 

o3 



c3 

r£ 

hi 
e 

o 
o 



T3 
Pi 
o3 



o 

CD 
N 



ft 

E3 
O 

fH 

bo 

rC 

CJ 

03 
CD 

c 



Pi 
o 

03 



• Pi 



03 

fH 

Pi 

CD 
CJ 

Pi 

O 

o 

CD 

r=l 



Pi 

CD 
CJ 
Pi 
O 
O 

o 

CO 

13 





per 
farm 




CM 




OS 




-10 ha 


cows 


LO 
LO 


3,892 




29,213 


33,656 
















farms 


tH 
LO 
LO 


1,946 




6,103 


8,600 




per 
? arm 










CO 






CM 




LO 




farms 
-20 ha 














CO 

& 


CD 

LO 
L— 


em 




CD 
00 


CD 
■rH 

°l 




O 
CD 




LO" 




CD 


o" 
[— 


















rms 


CD 

|2 


,687 




o 
cn 


eo 




CO 




CM 




th" 
tH 


lo" 

■rH 




K 0 








CO 






CD h 
P, CO 




CM 






CN 


0^ 


























Dairy far 
with 2-5 


COWS 


1,862 


8,994 




19,419 


30,275 


farms 


1,862 


4,497 




4,690 


11,049 




K 0 










00 




CD h 

a is 




CM 






CN 


Dairy farms 
under 2 ha 














COWS 


4,024 


5,848 




15,156 


25,028 


farms 


4,024 


2,924 




2,050 


8,998 






cow 


cows 


and 


A 










CM 


CO 










With 











H-H 

O 

ft 
Pi 

o 

fH 

be 

CD 

r£ 



03 

r£ 



O 
Pi 

o 

CO 



03 



CO 

pi 



CD 

d 

CD 
> 

'ho 

CD 

fH 

03 

CO 

ft 

f3 
O 

fH 

ho 

CD 
CD 

r. 



Pi 

o 



03 
Pi 
Pi 
-in> 

fH 
O 

Pi 

E3 



c- 

fH 

CD 

B 

Pi 
Pi 

CD 
CO 
CD 

r£ 

Eh 



r-. Q 



13 

a 



r, 

c 
a 

o 



fH 

03 

C+H 

CD 
Pi 



CD fH 



fH 

03 

H-H 
fH 



o3 

-a 

03 

rPJ 

(N 
I 

fH 

CD 
Pi 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



209 



a> 
> 

03 

r^ 

CD 



Pi 

o 



CO 

o 

o 



.2 

03 
03 

CD 

r^ 



be 



co 




an 




a 


WS 


th 


an 


03 


o 


fn 


M-H 


M-H 


CD 


CD 
-|J 


>> 


CD 




IT! 


fn 


es 


o 

co 


re; 


l dai 


th 




be 


o 


ave 


uch 


thin 






s 






oo 








CO 








be 


fl 


■<* 


be 
PI 




ar: 


fH 

CD 


Pj 
'be 




r^ 




fH 

CD 






0 


fH 


o 


fn 


B 


pe 


CD 


Sh-H 


CD 


CO 


th 


>> 


are 


o 


t£ 


air 


o 


11 L 




CO 


CO 


CD 


M-H 


CD 


pi 


O 


e 


1 1 


ecr 


Pi 


? arr, 




CO 


o 




PI 




~* L 


CD 


o 

CD 


03 






rH 




• i— i 

— ' 


O 


nt 


a 


CO 


tw 


nee 




CO 


tH 


CO 


icia 




>> 


CD 


CD 
ft 
CO 


CO 


PI 

o 


th 








nrt 


ave 5 


nd 


rly 


ani 


03 


i. Clea 


cd" 


>> 


eac 


icat 


CD 

r^ 


■s 


a 

fH 


nd 


H-J 


o 

CD 


03 

H-H 


• i— i 




CD 


fn 


03 
CD 


Pi 


PI 


CD 


fn 


03 


o 


ft 


03 



o 

CD 

r^ 
H-J 

Pi 
CD 

co" 

Pi 

O 



CJ 
CD 



CO 
CD 



03 



Pi 
03 

CO 

o3 
CD 
ft 

CD 

B 
a 

CO 
CD 

r^ 

-r^> 

bo 
Pi 
o 

B 

03 

CO 
CD 

"ft 

a 

03 
X 
CD 

CD 
fn 
O 



O 

a 

CN 
l 

h. 

a 

CD 

r^ 



CO 

Pi 

o 

fH 

O 
ft 

o 

fH 
ft 

bo 

Pi 

'$ 

o 



CO 

3 
o 
o 

00 
CO 

IS 

o 

CJ 

co 

CN 



CO 

o 

CJ 
CM 



CO 
<N 

is 
o 

CJ 



00 
CO 



fH 

03 
m-h 

00 
10 



CO 

45 



CN! 



O 



rH 

03 

H-H 

c- 

CD 
> 
03 

r^ 

CD 
IS 

CO 

O 

CJ 

CN 



co 



f-H 

03 
m-h 

CD 

r^ 

-r^> 

CO 

pi 
Pi 



fn 
03 

f-H 

CD 
ft 



fH 

03 

=+H 
f-H 

CD 

ft 



CN! 



CO 

tS 
O 

CJ 
CO 

o 

CN 



03 
O 



T3 

Pi 
03 

co 
ES 

o 

CJ 

A 

Pi 
03 

CO 

r^ 



03 

r^ 

CN 

fn 
CD 

Pi 
f3 

CD 

r^ 



Pj 

CD 
|S 

CO 

ft 

O 
O 

CJ 

>» 
fn 

•r-H 

03 



fH 

03 
ft 

bD 
Pi 

•1— I 
r*l 

03 



fH 

03 

M-H 

CD 

r^ 

bD 
Pi 
O 

B 

03 



f-H 

03 



co 



CO 



fH 

o3 



CN 



O 

Pi ^ 



Pi 
03 

8 
8 

0 

•5* 



fH 
=+H 

Sh 
CD 
ft 



00 
CO 

IS 

o 

O 
CD 

co 



fH 

03 

M-H 

CD 
lO 

ft 
Pi 
o 

fH 

be 



o3 

fH 

CD 
Pi 
CD 

be 



CO 
CD 
h. 

a 
o 

CN 
Pi 

o 



s 

f- 



>— ( 

CO 

o 

CJ 
^* 



CO 
CD 
fH 

03 

O 
10 



O 

fH 
=+H 



ft 

Pi 
o 

fH 

be 

03 
pCJ 

CN 

fH 

CD 

Pi 
Pi 

CD 



Pi 
03 

CO 
CD 

fH 

03 

O 
lO 

fH 

CD 

Pi 
Pi 



CD 
CO 
O 



CO 

ft 

=i 
o 

fH 

be 

Pi 

CO 

O 
^ 

O 
Pi 



fH 

03 

H-H 

=+H 

o 



Pi 
O 
0 

CD 
CO 

CD 

+i 

Pi 
03 



CU 

o, 

CO 

o 

CJ 
CD 

fH 

o 

B 

>, 
Pi 

03 

B 

CO 

03 

ft 
Pi 
O 

fH 

be 

Pi 

CO 



») 
a 
2 
a 

to 

* 

99 

■Si 
•Si 

ft 

co 

• 

(30 



o 
o 

co 
CD 



a 

S3 

a 



CD C^ 

pP| ^ 

2 o 

rR -rH 



Pi 

CD 

I* 
ccf 

CN 



03 

CJ 

•rH 
fH 

03 
CD 

CJ 

03 



Is. 



210 



V. I. LENIN 



03 





S3 




J3 




CM 
I 


<a 




w 


cs 


w 




o 


03 


LO 

1 


O 


o 


LO 



Farms under 2 ha partic- 
ipating in dairy co-ops 


per 
farm 




00 


cows 


3,514 
15,042 


18,556 


farms 


869 
9,431 


10,300 


Total 

cows 


11,255 
13,773 


25,028 


Per 
farm 




lO lO 




Their 

cows 


9,789 
5,367 


15,156 


hence 
with 
3 and > 


850 

1,ZUU 


2,050 


Including 

with 
2 cows 


372 
2,552 


2,924 


with 
1 cow 


722 
3,302 


4,024 


farms: 


1,944 
7,054 


8,998 



be m 

c B 

03 ^ 

So3 

CD «4-i 

O ° 

Pi >> 

• in Sh 

Pi bfl 

O CD 



03 * 
=D 

fH CD 
CD <3 
CD +3 

O Pi 

CD HH 

bp+j 

'3 ® 

5 ^ 

Sh CD 
03 
<~ PI 

•S3 o 
^ o 

<4_, CO 

°13 

CD 

03 Sh 

g « 

S ft 

f3 pi 
XI bo 



CO CO 

& £ 

O O 
CD CD 

CD 

cr> oo 

CD CD 
be bD 

03 03 

Jh Jh 

CD CD 

> > 
<3<J 

CO 

*S 

O 

CD 

00 CM 
OO CM 
GO 0O 



03 ^ 

CD 
CD^ 

^ • ^ 

to -si 

?h a> 
03 A 

O 

to 

03 co 

„ Pi 

CD O 
Sh 

O 02 

S> 
CD ~ 

g as 

P>H CD 



CO 

a. 

03 

CO tH 
CM 



03 A 
A A 

Pi O 03 
03 

r*! ^ r£ 
^ O o 

goo 

bo ^-T 

Pi 



CO CO 

O O 
CD CD 

CM OS 
CD 0O 



CD 
bD 
03 

?H ? 

. . o> 

CO > 

&<; 

o 

O co 

>> o 

CD 

CO CO 
T3 o C- 

bflO"} -rH 
Pi 

03 -t^> „ 

■rr >; 

CD ^ 
CO 

ft 03 
co ^ 

B CO TjH 

o 

^ c3 c3 

o 

2oo 

■5 ° o 

ia o 

Pi T 



CD CM 

r- o 

CD C- 

lo oo 

T-j LO 



c~ oo 
t- o 



03 03 



O 

Pi O 
03 LO 

O O 
O O 

lO (M 



co 

O 
CD 

o 

LO 



f3 

o 

03 

CD 
be 
03 

rH 

CD 
> 
< 



0O 

[- 
co 

c- 

(M 



LO 

0O 

LO" 



03 



Pi 

03 
O 

o 

CM 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



211 



Quantity of cattle 

auf je 100 ha landwirtschaftliche benutzter Flache*: 







(horned cattle) 


pigs 


Germany 


1882 


-48. 49 


-26.46 




1895 


— 5 2> .44 


-41-71 


Great Britain 


1885 


-5 0. 37 


— 18.20 


Denmark 


1893 


-59. 81 


-29. 24 


Holland 


1895 


-74.02 


31.76 


Belgium 


1880 


-69.7i 


32.59 



See statistics for 1895, text, pp. 60*-65* 



Cattle by categories: 







horned 


cattle 






pigs 








1882 


1895 




1882 


1895 




Under 2 


ha 


IO.5 


8.3 


-2. 2 


24. rj 


25. 6 


+O.9 


2- 5 


55 


16. 9 


16. 4 


-0-5 


17. 6 


17. 2 


-O.4 


5- 20 


55 


35. 7 


36. 5 


+ 0-8 


31-4 


31.! 


-;■» 


20-100 


55 


27. 0 


27. 3 


+0.3 


20-6 


19. 6 




100 and = 


> " 


9.9 


11. 5 


+ 1-6 


5.7 


6.5 


+ 0-8 






100 


100 




100 


100 





But the tremendous decline in commercial sheep-breeding 
(from 1882 to 1895, the number of sheep fell by 8V2 mil- 
lion (21. r 12. 6 ), with 7 million of this loss on the >20 ha 
farms!) makes the position of the large farms less fa- 
vourable in respect of the total quantity of livestock: 



Total cattle (value): 



1882 



Under 2 
2- 5 
5- 20 
20-100 

100 and > 



ha 9 



3 

13.i 
33.3 



1895 
9. 4 
13.g 
34. 2 
28 
14 



1} 



42. c 



+ 0.! 

+ O.4 
+ O.9 

-0-7 
-O.7 



100 



100 



Germany 1907 (with- 
out 0-2 ha) per farm = 
12. 8 ha 

2,357,573 farms with 



30,103,563 
farmland. 

Of them 
1,006,277 
652,798 



ha of 



2- 5 ha 
5-10 ha 



* Per 100 ha of cultivated farmland.— Ed. 



212 



V. I. LENIN 



Needless to say, the proportion of the big farms here has 
been understated, for the value of the livestock has been 
assumed to be the same everywhere, whereas livestock on 
the big farms is, of course, better, and fetches a higher 
price, so that the ratio between the groups could also be 
brought out incorrectly (improvement of livestock on the 
big farms). 

But the total number of livestock did, of course, increase 
less than on the small. 

The big farms lost most from the great decline in commer- 
cial sheep-breeding, and the more considerable (as compared 
with the small farms) increase in their raising of horned 
cattle and pigs only made up some, but not all of their loss. 



The following ratio for converting livestock into big 
cattle is given on p. 54 of the book, Die deutsche Volkswirt- 
schaft am Schlusse des 19. Jahrhunderts*: 

"I cow = 10 pigs = 10 sheep. ." 

If we add that 1 cow = 10 goats, we find: 



1895 



1882 



1895. horses 



3,367,298 
17,053,642 
1,259,287 
3,390,660 
310,525 



3,114,420 
15,454,372 
2,111,696 
2,107,814 
245,253 



horned cattle 
sheep CAo) . . 
pigs (y 4 ) . . . 
goats (Vio). . 



25,381,412 
23,033,555 



23,033,555 



2,347,857 



The German National Economy at the End of the 19th Century. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



213 









farms 






With 


1 cow 

2 " 


6,718— 6,718 
10,338—20,676 


cows 




With 


3 and > cows, 
Total 


17,056—27,394 

24,874—188,477 

41,930—215,871 


24,874 = 7 

38 



N.B. P. 69* says that in America "nicht mitgezahlt 
(from among the agricultural enterprises) sind 
dabei alle landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe unter 3 
Acres (= l. 2 o ha), sofern sie nicht im Censusjahr 
wenigstens einen Brutto-Ertrag im Wert von $500 
N.B. geliefert haben, was nur bei einigen wenigen in 
der Nahe von Groflstadten gelegenen Gartnereibe- 
trieben u.d.gl. zutrifft",* which is why, allegedly, 
no comparison with Germany is possible. 



* "At the same time no account was taken of any under-3-acre farms, 
which in the census year failed to yield a gross income of at least $500, this 
generally being the case only with some few vegetable and similar other farms 
situated in the vicinity of big towns." — Ed. 



214 



V. I. LENIN 



as 
oo 



si 
Q 

00 
00 



si 
o 

■kj 

0 

C3 
K 

o 



si 

a 

CO 

c 

o 
e 
§• 

o 
u 
o 



0 
J- 2 
CO 



ss 

o 

0 
0 



® 

s 

<5 



Pi 

CO- 
CO 

=S 
O 



CD 

o 
a> 

rH 

o 

bJO 
< 

PQ 



CU fj 
S 3 ft 

.a 3 

H U •■ 

bo" a) 
as O c 



£ H M 

O +3 

n O 
CO CD 

° .13 
E S 



CD 
Sh 

60 ft 



c3 

CJ 

go 

s s 

cu 

CO 

o 

CD 2 

CD 
Ph 



o 


o 


c~ 


CO 


CO 


CD 


+ 


+ 


+ 



lf5 



CN 
00 

oo 



CN 

oo 

CD 



CN 
TO 



* 
* 

O 

CD 

CN 



O 

o 



CN 
CD 



ic 
oo 



CS! 
00 
00 



CD 
CN 

+ 



CN 
CN 



CO 
lO 
CN 



CD 
CO 



C75 
OO 



CO 



+ 



CO 
CO 
CN 

+ 



CN 



00 
00 



CO 
CO 

I 



CO 



00 
CO 
CN 

+ 



LO 
00 

o 



00 



o 

CO 

+ 



00 



o 

+ 



CN 
Oi 



CN 
C— 
GO 



CN 

a 



LO 

lo 



CO 
00 



CO 

oo 

CO 



CD 
CD 

00 



o 

LO 

CN 



o 

00 



LO 

o 



CO 
CD 



o 

CO 

+ 



o 

CO 
+ 



Oi 

0O 

LO 



a 



CD 



CO ' 



X CU rC 

® a m 

fi O CU 



cu 



CU CO 
CU 

S3 

si 



£ 00 

o 

9 ° 

o , , 

"£ rC T3 

60.13 R 

v5 £ ,2 

CO 

O 



CO 

O 
+ 

T — I 

o 



cu 
cu 

o 



as 



a 

a cu 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



215 















+ 


+ 


oo 


oo 




CO 


us 






to" 


tH 






CD 




TO 




to" 



U3 

+ 



CO 
CD 



GO 

o 



03 



CO 

-§ 

02 
5h 

O 



o 



CD 

a 

o 



ft 
B 

C3 CD 



c3 



c3 
02 



US 
OS 
CO 



c\> 

00 
00 



o 

+ 



OS 
US 

+ 

c- 

C75 
CO 

+ 



CD CD 



CO 

Ml 



+ + +1 



o 

CD 



O 

CD 



,120 


CD 
CD 


,784 


C75 




CO 
O0 
1M 






CM 


CO 




CN 


< 


o 




O 


m 


O 



+ 



CO CO 



CD 



us 

I 



OS 
CN1 



CO 



CO 

+ 



00 
U3 
co" 



+ 



C— CO 
ON 

+ + 



to" 



US 

o 





s 








q 




co" 



CD 
O 



CO 
I 



CO 

+ 



CO 

+ 



OS 
US 



US 



o 



O 

o 



CD 



c— 
co 



o 
o 



Pi 

CD 




* * 
* 



216 



V. I. LENIN 



In studying the changes in occupations, the following 
must be adopted as a basis: 

1) agriculture proper: Al, and not Al-6 (Mr. Bulgakov, 
II, 133, takes precisely these Al-6, thereby obtaining 
a + number of gainfully employed population, i.e., adds 
to agriculture truck gardening, forestry and fishery, which 
is clearly wrong) 

2) main occupation, i.e., persons for whom agriculture 
is the main occupation. Data on subsidiary employment 
are highly indefinite in the sense that they fail to show the 
importance of the subsidiary employment, etc. 

Conclusions: 

1. Bulgakov is quite wrong in saying that there is an 
increase in the quantity of agricultural labour. In the main 
occupation it has decreased. We cannot judge how 
far this is offset by an increase of agricultural labour in 
subsidiary employment. 

2. Changes in the distribution of occupations (main occu- 
pation) show: 

a) a growth of expropriation: the total number of 
\and-holders (owners, leaseholders and labourers) 
had dropped by 250,000. The number of 
owners has increased by 233,000, and the number 
of labourers with land has decreased by 483,000, 
Consequently, it was the poorest section of 
the farmers that was expropriated. 

The number of labourers used the capitalist way increased 
by 231,000 (+7. 7 %, i.e., a greater increase than that in 
the number of owners, which was 5.6%). 

Consequently, agriculture developed precisely and spe- 
cifically the capitalist way. 

[Let us note that it is quite wrong to include working 
members of farmer families (C 1) among hired labourers — as 
statistics, and Mr. Bulgakov, II, 133 along with it, do. 
C 1 — co-owners, and C 2-C 4 — hired labourers. Therefore, 
when determining the capitalist application of labour, C 1 
should be added to A.] 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



217 



As for C 3, it is, of course, an intermediate category: on 
the one hand, they are hired labourers, and on the other, 
holders. And it is this intermediate category that has 
been eroded most in 13 years. 

Written in June-September 1901, 
with additions in 1910 



First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



Printed from the original 



218 



ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM THE BOOK, 

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS OF FRANCE. 
GENERAL RESULTS 
OF THE 1892 DECENNIAL INQUIRY 89 

Part I 

Pp. 

80. Wheat crops (Nord — most of all) 
87. Oat crops (idem) 

90. Reduction in the area under cereals 1862-1882- 
1892 

100. Growth of gross output of cereals 1834-1865-1885- 
1895 

105. Especially great growth in 1882-1892 (!) 

106. Reason: fertilisers, etc. 

108. Wheat crops from 1815 to 1895 {Hertz, p. 50} 
113. Wheat production (total) from 1831 to 1891 (+ + ) 
and 114 especially averages for decades 

115. Growth in consumption of wheat per head (and for 

industrial purposes N.B.) 
137. Reduction in the raising of beans, etc. 
143. Increase in the raising of potatoes et al., and 

higher yields (p. 144) 
158. Growth in the production of feed in 1862-1882-1892 





1862 


1882 


1892 


artificial meadows 


2-8 


3.i 


3.o 


natural meadows 


5.o 


5. 9 


6.2 



161. N.B. percentage growth of meadows from 1862 (N.B.) 

163. Sugar plants prevail among the industrial crops 
(52. 14 %) 

164. — Nord leading. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



219 



180. Sugar-beet: especially Nord 

183. Growth in sugar production from 1887 to 1897. 

198. Vegetable gardens mostly near big towns (N.B.). 

203. Vegetable gardens decline from 1882. 

206. Fallow declines. 

242. Comparison with 1840 of all types of crops. 

257. Nord is especially rich in livestock. 

340. Consumption of meat. 



1. Nord .... 

2. Pas-de-Calais . 

3. Somme . . . 

4. Ardennes . . . 

5. Oise 

6. Aisne .... 

7. Seine-et-Oise . 

8. Seine .... 

9. Eure-et-Loire . 
10. Seine-et-Marne 



Wheat 
hi per 100 ha 
total farm- 
land 

594 
505 
469 
297 
436 
482 
409 
381 
455 
453 



output 
hi 



3,144,749 
3,205,744 
2,778,499 
1,498,899 
2,455,795 
3,412,329 
2,167,158 
103,379 
2,579,191 
2,570,100 

24 



hi 

per 
ha 



25. 5 
20. 2 

21-2 

21. 4 
22. 8 
23. 9 
23. 9 
26. 8 

21- 5 

22- 5 



Average for 
France 



230 2=117,499,297 



16., 



in the whole of France 



France. 1892: 



(Pp. 356-59) 



Under 1 ha 
1-10 " 
10-40 " 
40 and > " 



% of 
farms 



39. 
45. 



12. 

2 



•48 \ 
•43 J 



Average 

size 
of farms 



0. 



14.91 



20. 
162. 



59 
•28 

13 
21 



Area 
cultivated 



2. P 



24. 
30. 
43. 



73.05 



not 




culti- 




vated 




1-35 


2. 


13 -83 


22. 


21-96 


28. 


62-86 


45. 



total 



67 
80 

•98 \ 
•55 J 



74.53 



2=100 



100 



100 100 



220 



V. I. LENIN 



Distribution of Cultivated Area 

Mead Vegetables Woods 

Ploughland owg Vineyards | d and 

a forests 

Under 1 ha 2. 78 3. 20 7. 56 16. 26 1. 18 

1-10 " 25. 71 29. 27 35. 42 34. 48 11. 96 

10-40 " 32.ool nA 36. 4 o 25. q8 l rn 25. q q 1 18. q4 

40and>" 39.S } 71 - 51 8lJ 8lJ } 67 -« 28.J } 67.£ 



2=100 100 100 100 100 

Number of farms (part 2, pp. 221-25) 

Under 1 1-10 10-40 40 and > 

1862 ? 2,435,401 636,309 154,167 

1882 2,167,667 2,635,030 727,222 142,088 
1892 2,235,405 2,617,558 711,118 138,671 

Agricultural Machinery (part 2, pp, 256-59) 

Steam 

machines Horse- T , „ 

and Ploughs*) drawn i / lres " Seeders Mowers n f " Tedders Total 
traction hoes hers vesters 

engines 



1862 2,849 3,206,421 25,846 100,733 10,853 9,442 8,907 5,649 3,867,851 
1882 9,288 3,267,187 195,410 211,045 29,391 19,147 16,025 27,364 3,765,569 
1892 12,037 3,669,212 251,798 234,380 52,375 38,753 23,432 51,451 4,321,401 



Souchon (p. 94) should not be too happy about the num- 
ber of machines having shown a moderate growth. If 
ploughs are not included in the "machines", the growth 
turns out to be rather strong, (p. 195). 



Growth of production 



1882 
1892 



*) 



double and 
multi-share 



(part 2, p. 201) 

Cheese and Butter 
2000 kg 2000 kg 

114,696 74,851 
136,654 132,023 

1862—? 

1882—157,719 

1892—198,506 



(p. 195) 

Quantity 
of milk 



Milch 
cows 



per 
cow 



Total 
mill, 
hi 



5,019,670 15 68. 206 
5,407,126 16 77. 013 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



221 



Vineyards 

Part II, p. 89: from 1882, the number of ha has de- 
clined, but the number of hi of wine per ha increased from 
15.28 to 16.12 

Beet (sugar) (part 2, p. 63) 

ha quintals per ha 

1862 136,492 324 
1882 240,465 368 
1892 271,258 267 

Number of farms: (part 1, 363) 





> 40 ha 


40-100 ha 


0/ 

/o 


100 ha and > 


0/ 
/o 


1882 


142,000 


113,000 


1-98 


29,000 


0-52 


1892 


139,000 


106,000 


1-84 


33,000 


0-58 




—3,000 


—7,000 




+4,000 





Increase: < 1 ha 



1882 
1892 



% 

2,168,000 
2,235,000 



38.22 

39. 21 



and 5-10 ha 



1882 
1892 



% 

769,000 
788,000 



13-56 
13-82 



by % area under potatoes 
10 and > % 



Basses-Alpes Loire 

Rhone Vosges 

Puy-de-D6me Pyrenees-Orientales 

Sarthe Haute-Rhin (Belfort) 

Haute Vienne Seine 

Saone-et-Loire Ariege 

Dordogne Ardeche 

Correze ~7Z 

lo 



222 



V. I. LENIN 



by % of vineyards 
5% and > 

Vaucluse 
Lot 

Maine-et-Loire 

Loire-et-Cher 

Tarn-et-Garonne 

Puy-de-D6me 

Var 

Haute-Garonne 



Indre-et-Loire 
Gard 



Lot-et-Garonne 
Rhone 

Pyrenees-Orientales 

Gironde 

Gers 

Aude 

Herault 



17 



% of area under cereals p. 65 

area (without %!!) under industrial crops: p. 

vegetable gardens p. 199 without % 

vineyards p. 211, % given 

AZZ(?) (not all) crops by %%: p. 238. 

potato % given p. 139. 



5^ 
O 



> 
O 



164 



Area under vineyards in France (Bulgakov, II, 193) 



Under 1 ha 
1-10 " 



10-40 
40 and 



of total, 
farmland 

11% 
6% 

2. 7 % 

3% 



Total area 
(ha) 

1 327 253 

5,489,200 1 =11 244 700 
5,755,500 J n ^ 44 >' uu 

14,313,417 

22,493,393 



Average 4.5% 49,378,763 



This is area 
under vine- 
yards 
c. 

145,000 ha 

675,000 ha 

386,000 ha 
675,000 ha 

1,881,000 ha 



according to Note 4 on p. 184 
vineyards total 1,800,000 ha 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



223 



Departments with the most developed beetroot produc- 
tion: (p. 180) 



ha 
under 
beetroot 



Area un- 
der farms 
40 ha 
and > 



i. in orci 


47 0>(\<1 
*± i ,3U u 


1 £7 83fi 
ID / , O o 0 


Aisne 


61,429 


392,007 


Pas-de-Calais 


37,325 


250,733 


Somme 


35,096 


253,496 


4. Oise 


24,828 


296,201 


Seine-et-Marne 


16,278 


339,419 


Seine-et-Oise 


9,992 


287, 377 


8. Ardennes 


5,212 


271,518 


2= 


238,063 


2,258,587 4 



Total area 
under all 
farms ha 



511,166 
674,860 
629,350 
591,250 
529,933 
547,800 
501,302 
485,290 
4,471,001 



Of total ha 
271,258 

(products on 
them — 64 mill, 
quintals out 
of 72) 



1892=271,000 ha 
1882 = 240,000 " 
1862 = 136,000 " 
1840= 58,000 " 



'/ 2 with average for France 

0 

NOT FC 



45-55% 



Under 
potatoes % 
ha 



p. 139 
of plough- 
land 





19,714 


0/ 

5. 3 


>y 2 


13,286 


2. 6 


<y 2 


24,279 


4-6 


<y 2 


15,374 


3.! 


>y 2 


7,601 


1-9 


>y 2 


10,001 


2-4 


>'/2 


16,802 


4-4 


>y 2 


17,149 


6-0 


>y 2 124,206 
(of 1,474,144) 


average 

for 
France 
5-72% 



Written in 1901 



First printed in the 
Fourth Russian edition 
of the Collected Works 



Printed from the original 



224 V. I. LENIN 



55 
< 

fa" 
O 



M 
OS 

55 
w 
n 

n 
< 



§ CO 

fa ^ 



55 
O 



CO 



n 



o 

OS 

00 

n 

55 

< 

CQ 

o 

00 
00 
■^H 

fa" 

W 

fa 

o 

CO 

w 

CO 



Ph 

PQ 

„ £> 
S co 
Q £> 55 

CO O o 

Ph W W 

^ PQ m 

§ R Eh 



o 

55 

P5 
fa 



O 
P3 
fa 



as 



g <4-h ^ 



® 3 



CM 
CO 

3 GO 



lO o as o 



^ lO C~ vH 

00 tr— CO O 

01 CO CO CO 



CO *0 rH G"S T"H 

O CO CM CD CO 

CO CM t- CO CO 

H CO OJ 05 » 



t— O r- O 

LO O CO ^ 
CM CO oq 



CO CO CO O CO 
CO O Ol t> CO 



co cn en tr- 



ee co c— lo o 



t- CO IT- H 

CD tH O CD CD 
CO CO CO IT- o 



CO CD 
CO vH 
CM O 



CD CO 



cn 

CO, 



CO O CD c~ 
O CD LO CO 



CO CO C- LO O 



H N ic O 
CO O O 



— o 

CO ^ to 



lo Oi 



QO H H ^ 

CD CO w CO cs, 
O Ol ^ (N 



CS1 LO O H 



CO o o t- CO 

LO O O '^- | C7S 

(M (M LO ^ CO 

c— lo co co 

CM OO io H 

co tr~ co 

H lO io ^ N 



CN1 xH xH cTi ^ 



CO O O LO 



co tr— co lo co 

CO CD ^ 

O lO t> CO ^ 

H LO LO (M 



lo Oi Oi co 
O lO Q H 
IN (N H 



LO CI OO 
CO CM CO 
CM CO 



(M C3 CD tH t— l 

CO Ol LQ GO LO 

CO CM CO CM CM 
CO CO H H 



CZ> t— I CNI CO 
CO (M CO ^ O 



tr- GO CM CM CO 

CD E— lO CM CO 

CO CO H <m o 

C*~ LO 0"S t— CM 

CD CD CD CM ^ 

x— 1 GO t t~~ rH 



lO 



o 
Eh 



CO t> CO o 

LO °0 CO H tJH 

qj" OS ^ CM CO 



CM LO O O 



£3 



o 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



225 



Cl^tr-O^-i'^OOLO 

CDCDCDa0 L "~^- |O O 

CO CD CO OO 00 ^ °„ 00 

^ cm" W 10 0:1 



^ CO Oj t£) 
CO CO lO 



CO CO LO CM CO 

CM O CO GO LO 

CM LO CO CM H 

CO ^ CD CM LO 

CO 01 i> 10 



t-COlDXCDtOCSrl 



go go co lo lo go co co 
cdhcocm^coho 

CTjGOcoCOCMLOCOCO 

1> 10 ^1 H CO ^ 

^] ^ CX) CD CO vH 



O C— LO ^ LO CO 

Ol IO » CO OJ 
H IC •> tO CC lO 

O IO N H CO Tf H 

LO CO O CM O CO CO 

vH (M a H O 



N H -H -H 

O ffl ID O CO 

CD LO LO CO O 

lo" CD t- cx, 

(M CO ^ W 



Oi ^ O CO (M GO 

t- H 00 I> o 

cm tr- lo go cT; en lo 

OS CM lo" LO GO 

CO LO CO CO t~ CM 

^ CM ^ O CO 



CO CO © GO CO 

H 0 Tt CO in 

CO tr- rr~ (35 (35 

t> t- CO t~" rH 



as pi 

■h a 

CD 2 CD 

M O U 

3 » O 



0 o o o 

£ cm o ^ ^ , 



o o o o o 

CM LO O O O o 

rH LO O 0 



LO lo o o o o o 
' CM LO O O O 

^ tH CO LO 



lo o o o 



■"d CM 
0 
£3 



2 'XIX 'ZN 



226 



FROM THE DUTCH 

From the Dutch Agricultural Inquiry of 1890. {Thiels 
Gr ohm an n's} 

Insurance of dead and livestock of labourers 
Of them 



Number of 
typical com- 
munities 

30 
44 



44 



Total number Qwners 
of insured 



Labourers 

Small peas- 
ants and 
peasants 

Big peasants 



4,551 

4,319 
2,671 



1,693 

1,700 
972 



Lease- 
holders 

2,055 



1,363 
1,013 



Both 
simulta- 
neously 

803 



1,256 
686 



30 Labourers 4,551 1,693 2,055 803 

45 Small peas- 

ants and 

peasants 4,149 1,553 1,331 1,265 

45 Big peasants 2,670 1,022 955 693 



Thiel's Agricultural Yearbook, Vol. 22 (1893).— Ed. 



227 



AGRICULTURAL INQUIRY OF 1890 



91 



Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher. B. 22 (1893).* 
Article 

and peasants by categories and percentages 

Of the total number of insured 

those insured by items and percentages 
p. House- t . 

D . we11 " % hold % L f 1Ve v °/° Crops % 

m S s effects stock 

2,020 44. 4 1,524 33. 5 730 16 720 15. 8 



3,084 71. 6 2,263 52. 4 1,712 39. 7 1,787 41. 4 

2,059 77 1,827 68. 4 1,472 55. 4 1,631 61. 0 

Head of insured livestock by categories 
and percentages 

Milch Young Fat He- and 

cows % stock % Sheep % tened % she- % 

pigs goats 

4,062 89. 3 1,416 31^ 4,041 88. 8 6,028 132. 5 3,089 68 



17,470 421. 0 11,129 268. 3 11,441 275. 8 12,414 299. 2 802 19. 3 

28,166 1,050. 5 22,513 843. 2 21,667 811. 5 13,562 507. 9 349 13 

Continued: Horses 

Draught 0 , Geldings „, Young 0 , 

oxen 0 and mares horses 

85 1. 9 103 2.3 3 0. 0 

253 6. 0 3,545 85. 5 346 8. 4 

84 3. 4 7,159 268. 2 1,504 56. 3 



228 



V. I. LENIN 



' — • I. 

• "? 

> A 



o 

OS 
CO 



O 

>> 



03 
f3 

o 

•p-H 

be 

<! 

0 



=3 
S5 



2 p'p 

Q> CO CO 



Si 0) £ „ co cu 

a> co£ £ 

;3 P^ q> CO 

3 o 



^ CN | 
^ I I I 

^ I I I 

tJh CO CM 



»gA I I I'o 

CO 



CO CO 



t>OOC^iOO 



Mill: 



i | 0O | tH 

CON | | | | 

| co ia | co 

vH CO lO I tH 

I 



I 1 1 



CO CM 



co no i I I o 
co ^ i i I o 

<°2 I IS 

CO "^f t I ^ 
■H I I CM 

I 



I 



'2 I I 
| | 

< ^ CO I 



I IS 



tH CM tH I lO 




co t— 
lO CO O CM t~~ 
CO ^ I CO 



CO CO CM UO CO 

cn co c- cm co 

CO CO CM CM 



O CO CO 
CO O CO CM 



^ O "rH CO I CO 

CO CO CM 

CO CO ^ | d 



CD 



, o o o 



, up CM tH 



o 

S-H 



JOccffl 



CD 

S £ 

ca co 
JO 



co m 

■2 +* 

co P PI 

-g co co 

CO » J Sh 

""3 CO O 
1 J!^5 



O CO 



CO 

co 03 
"2 + 1 
to P CI 
CO CO 

co co a S 
co & g £ 

a lo 10 ° 

.sa-g-s 



I 
o 
o 



o 

> 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



229 



I I 
I I 
I 
I 



I 



<M I 

3 I 

ZD HO 



I 



^ ^ <x> 



I I -H I "H 

| l | ^ | ^ 



I 



CO CO (M CO 



5 I I 



CM CM I CM t-H 



I I 



I I | <N | Csl 

I I IS|S 

I I | s 

I I IS 

CM (M CO O I <M 

I ^s Is 

I I 



-III 

CO CO io I 

m 

i-l 
i i-| 



CM CO LO 1 
ZD ^ CO CO t- 

N" 


P vH CO IO ^ 1 if 

oi >rH cn os o 

H UO rH ^ | O 

N 


S OS C- CD OS 

2 CM LQ tr-~ t~~ 

3 vH CM CO 

N 


O O O ZD 
C- CM ^ 

i i i i 
O O io fM 
CM 


CM O O O 
^ CM ZD 
i i i i 
■<H (M O O 
tH CM 


N 



MO g 

CS ft CO e. 

.9 0 

fflcoOJ 



■i S 0.3= 



r- ™ £h ^ 
SB =« S -° 

•h » S a 
PQ Ph CD -J 



t3 


I 

CD 


&o 


CD 


rH 


a 


a 


CD 


rH 






o3 


a 




S+H 


f3 




S+H 


CO 


CO 


o 


1— 1 'TJ 




CD 
ro 


03 ~0 






B 


a 


O 
CD 


rH 


c 


r^ 


o3 

S+H 


a 

■4-1 




e 




CD 


o 

S-i 


o 


s 








CD 


he 


wo 


th. 




id 


>, 








o 


o3 


CD 








si 


o3 


&o 


CD 


Pi 


CD 


f3 


CJ 


s 




X 




5h 


CD 


'a 


O 




5+H 


Pi 


o 


Pi 


• 1— 1 


o 






GO 






th. 


O 


R 


o 


& 


o3 


r^ 


03 <M 


ep 



03 



co 



>> 
Sh 
03 
Sh 

o 
ft 

a 

CD 



rH 

CD 
bJO 
03 
&o 

CO 

03 
ft 



CD 

rH 

o 
ft 

a 

CD 



r^ 



CD 



CD 
Pi 
o3 

a 

rH 

CD 



id 


CD 


pi 


=+H 


CD 




rD 
• -H 




CD 




CJ 




• rH 






cd" 


rO 

• 1— 1 


a 


CD 


fH 




CD 




=4-1 






M 




• i — i 


CO 




o3 


CD 


> 




II 






O 


> 


rH 




> 




II 




> 



230 



V. I. LENIN 



The Inquiry is called Uitkomsten van het Onderzoek naar den 
Toestand van den Landbouw in Nederland* and was carried 
out by an agrarian commission appointed by royal decree on 
September 18, 1886. Four big volumes (The Hague, 1890). 

Descriptions by communities are on the lines of the Ba- 
den and other inquiries (but almost without budgets). Of 
special interest are the tables on many communities show- 
ing the distribution of farms among labourers , "carters", 
small peasants, and big peasants — (in Community No. 1, 
Laren, labourers usually have 1-2 ha; "carters", 2-10 ha; 
small peasants, 10-20 ha and big peasants, 30-40 ha; p. 
7, Vol. I). Here are some of the heads in the table: 1) Getal 
= number of farms by size; 2) "state and location of land 
established with the participation of a definite number of 
farmers" (the location of the land ... on the farms is ad- 
vantageous, middling, bad); — "gebruikte Mest" (use of 
fertilisers: manure, artificial fertilisers — by number of 
farms). — Number of horses and livestock of all categories. — 
Number of farms making butter and cheese (Zuivelboeren = 
peasants engaged in dairy farming). Number of farms using 
"old" (alt) and "new" methods of "dairy farming". Number 
of farms keeping "farm-hands" and "labourers" under three 
heads: 1 each, 2 each, "3 and more each". 

In the summing up in Vol. IV, there are summaries for 
some few data relating to the communities, but there is not 
a single summary for all the communities together (a total of 
9 5 communities were studied). 

There are different classifications by groups: 1) labour- 
ers, small peasants, big peasants; 2) land area 1-5 ha, etc., 
60-70 ha, 70 ha and over, etc.; 3) horses (Community 
No. 92: small peasants — with one horse; peasants, with 2 
horses; big peasants, with 3 or more horses); 4) vegetable 
gardeners, tobacco-planters, etc., are singled out. 

Written not earlier than April 1902- 
not later than April 1903 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXII 



Results of a Study of the State of Agriculture in the Netherlands. — Ed. 



231 



REMARKS ON E. STUMPFE'S WORKS 

A 

AN ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM STUMPFE'S ARTICLE, 
"ON THE COMPETITIVENESS OF SMALL 
AND MEDIUM LAND HOLDINGS AS 
COMPARED WITH LARGE LAND HOLDINGS" 

Stump fe. "Uber die Konkurrenzfahigkeit des kleinen 
und mittleren Grundbesitzes gegeniiber dem Grossgrund- 
besitze." 



Thiels landwirtschaftliche 
Jahrbiicher, 1896, Band 25. 



Stumpfe comes straight to the point by saying that if 
large units in agriculture were superior to the small, as they 
are in industry, the law on the settlement of Eastern Prussia 
would have been a mistake, and the Social-Democrats 
would have been right (p. 58). 

According to the 1882 data, medium farms (10- 
100 ha!!) = 12. 4 % of the farms and 47. 6 % of the land- 
hence the "great economic importance of the peasantry" ! 
(p. 58). 

9 farms [Big and medium — kept books. Small farms — 
"strongest mistrust" p. 59]. 
Group I. Glogau district — sandy soil, rye and potatoes. 

II. Neumarkt and Breslau districts — good soil, 

beet crops, very intensive. 
III. Liegnitz district — lower intensiveness, weaker 
root crops. 



232 V. I. LENIN 



Group I 



How 
much 
land 
ha? 



Land 
classification 
Class ha 



Crop yield 
Crop area per Morgen Livestock 
ha Centners 

rye potato horses horned 
cattle 



Big farm 
{1892-93} 


1,033 


V- 52 
VI— 203 
VII— 198 
VIII— 23 


476 
(1,903 
Morgen) 


7.5 79 


23+ 170 


Medium 


21-25 


? almost 


19 


5 50 


2+ 9 


farm 


the same 




oats: 7.5 


( + 6 pigs) 






land 












Note No. 1* 









Small 11. 2 5 V-0.25 10 5. 25 ? 1+ 5 

farm VI— 3 (+4 pigs) 

VII- 3.50 
VIII- 3 



Big farm 
(1892-93) 


471.5 


I— 
II— 
III — 


212.5 
120.5 

59.0 


361 3 / 4 


IO.7 

wheat 


beet 
146 
12.75 


30+ 180 
(111 sheep**) 


Medium 


51.5 


III — 


25 


47.5 


8. 9 


beet 


6+ 29 


farm 




IV — 


13 






137 


(14 pigs) 






V- 


4 














VI- 


O.75 




wheat 


U-3 




Small 
farm 


8.5 


II— 
III — 

IV — 


1 
4 

3-5 


7-25 


? 




0+ 5 
(6 pigs) 



Big farm 
(1893-94) 


445 


? 


1 


? 


29+ 173 
324 sheep 
47 pigs 


Medium 


40.75 


Ill- II.5 


37.25 


? 


7+ 29 


farm 


IV-22.25 




19 pigs 






v- 3.5 








Small 
farm 


8.0 


HI- 3.60 

IV- I.75 
V-2.60 


7.75 


? 


? 



See p. 236.— Ed. 

A figure denoting the increase of sheep in 1892-93. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



233 



Receipts (marks) 



Amount 



Sales 



grain 


livestock 


Sundries 


Farm 


(Total 


and milk 




economy 


receipts) 


38,136 


27,289 


62,111 


5,500 


133,489 


' «— 




("on manor 


+ 453 


* 




account") 




1,257 


758 


— 


— 


2,015 


618 


491 


— 




1,109 


ha Ann ™ 
b4,4 10 milK 


21,357 beet 


46,144 


from lease 






i 

T 








livestock 


iy,o/u poiaioes 




2,866 






I 

T 


1,40 / 






sheep 


6,455 fruits 




5,852 (= 


stocks in 




in general 


4,767 




hand) 


0,0/4 

i 


4,uou Deex 


i D i 


A 1 

rape and clover 


1 1 nan 
11, uou 


+ 198 


potatoes 


40 






1,010 


1,095 




— 


2,105 


34,334 


18,201 potatoes 


1,145 


from lease 


68,667 


other cereals 


receipts 




117 




+ seed 


from 








12,005 


sheepyard 


2,865 






3,584 live- 


potatoes 


504 


clover 153 


8,544 


stock 


1,910 




pigs 1,0 0 7 




milk 


780 









poultry 76 
* ' 

+ 530* 



632 livestock 176 beet 
milk 290 
pigs 120 



105 
155 



= cucumbers 
and cabbage 



1,478 



(ctd on next page) 



* Stumpfe lists these receipts (453, 198 and 530 marks) under the head 
of "Insgemein" ("General Receipts"). — Ed. 



234 



V. I. LENIN 



[ctd] 



Outlays 



a) taxes 


a) salaries 






purchases 


a) building 




b) fire 


and wages 




a) livestock 


repairs 




r\ A Vl Q I 1 
tlllLl LLCXL1 


of farm- 


Sundries 


b) feed 


hi irfliKinnrta- 


fnfal 


lnsur- 


hands 




c) 


artificial 


tion car- 






b) day wages 




fertilisers 


piflffp iyi oil 

L IdgC , 11 1 CI 1 1 














c) others 




a) 953 


7,093 


4,939 


a) 




1 617 


111 398 


+ 


+ (farm requirements) 




+ 






b) 2,120 


19,221 


36,593 


b) 


11,175 


1,162 




(distillation) 




+ 










c) 


11,796 


2,223 




34 




50 




90 


64 


625 




+ \ 347 


(sundries) 






(blacksmith, 




40 


b I 








saddle-maker 














cartwright) 






a f 


42 




63 


29 


287 


a + b = 33 + -l 90 


+ 






(blacksmith, 






b I 


30 






etc.) 





b)f 7:; ! 



1,374 
734 
084 



a) 9,933 

b) 24,725 

c) 4,089 
food for 

farm-hands 



sundries: 2,355 
purchase of 
grain = 5,423 
steam plough = 
2,530 



a) 14,557 

b) 24,552 

c) 10,052 
sheepyard 
expenses = 

4,962 



a) 692 

b) 1,111 120,350 

c) 2,914 

6,168 = pay to 

artisans 
1,595 heating 
1,500 firewood 

and timber 



a 

+ 

b 



| 379 + |l,560 



purchase of seed a) 554 
230 b) 890 

c) 634 



general expenses 
969 5,500 
275 black- 
smith, etc. 



a) 
b) 



30 
26 



sundries: 65 



a) 
b) 



100 
225 



blacksmith, 
etc. 31 



503 



a) 


1,288 


a) 5,336 


2,836 


a) 


2,070 


a) 375 


38,298 


b) 


2,238 


b) 13,228 


firewood and coal 


b) 


5,320 


b) 117 


432 


sundries: 661 


c) 


775 


c) 618 








farm- hands 


sheepyard expenses seeds: 177 


2,714 








and food 


113 






artisans 




a) 


159 




262 


a) 


549 


a) 


4,633 




+ / 1,137 


artisans 


b) 


900 


b) 


b) 


152 


b L 218 


old-age insur- 


c) 


305 


c) 770 






food for 


ance=34 




seed 147 








farm- hands 












a) 


34 




general 68 


a) 


90 


46 


410 


b) 


22 




b) 


110 


blacksmith, 












c) 


40 


etc. 





CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



235 



Profit (less 
remuneration 
to owner) 


_ Net 

income 

marks 


Same 
per ha 








22,091 
1,500 


20,591 


36.72 


Big 
farm 






1,390 
350 (!!) 


1,040 


50.12 


Medium 
farm 


- Group 


I 


822 

300 (!!) 


522 


52.20 


Small 
farm 






52,364 
1,500 


50,864 


U8.40 


Big 
farm 






5,566 
450 


5,116 


99.32 


Medium 
farm 


- Group 


II 


1,602 
450 


1,152 


135.56 


Small 
farm 






30,369 
900 


29,469 


76.Q4 


Big 
farm 






3,911 
450 


3,461 


84. 9 2 


Medium 
farm 


- Group 


III 


1,608 
350 


718 


89. 7 2 


Small 
farm 







236 



V. I. LENIN 



Notes to Tables* 

No. 1. "It was impossible to establish the land assessment 
there (medium farm of Group I), but the ploughland was 
almost of the same quality as on the landowner's estate (big 
farm I), possibly slightly more uniform" (p. 63). 

About Group I, the author (who was employed on the 
estate for two years and has a knowledge of the countryside 
(p. 66)), says: 

While, on the strength of the big outlays under the head 
of feed and artificial fertilisers, and also the large expen- 
diture on wages, and taking account of the sandy soil, 
the landowner's estate should be characterised as highly 
intensive and undoubtedly quite up to the modern standard, 
the very opposite has to be said of the two peasant farms. 

"In almost every respect they are still being run on the old 
lines, and their production should be classified as extensive, 
in terms of capital and labour. No feed or fertilisers 
are purchased; on the contrary, considerable quantities 
of straw and also rye and potatoes, especially, are sold. 
In consequence, there is insufficient compensation of nutri- 
tive substances.... The result is worse crops and a shortage 
of livestock. 

"The stubbornness with which local peasants stick to 
their old habits is very hard to understand, especially in 
view of the good example they daily have before them, 
which could, after all, stimulate them to competition. 
However, in the recent period, it appears, there, too, a 
turn for the better is beginning" (p. 61). 

Remuneration for the owner's labour is reckoned at 
7,500 for the big farm (the usual salary of a manager!!) -s- 5 
(the owner has 5 estates!!) = 1,500. For the medium farm — 
350 ("the usual pay for the country" (p. 64) for managing 
such a farm!). For the small farm — 300 ("a unit!!! half 
the size of the preceding one" p. 66). 

No size of family is given. 

Concerning Group II, Stumpfe remarks that the farms 
are not quite comparable, because the land is better 
on the big farm (the whole farm is a pearl among the Sile- 
sian estates (p. 74), according to a professor from Halle!!), 



See pp. 232-36.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



237 



and it is much better situated, only 1 mile from 
Breslau (the small farms are much farther away). Still!! 
small farming is particularly profitable!!! 

About the medium farm of Group II: "But the espe- 
cially great advantage of peasant farming is that it is 
entirely in the owner's hands, and that work in one's [ I 
own interest and for one's personal profit will nearly ' ' 
always be of higher value, and more economical and 
profitable than work in the interest of others" (p. 69).. 

For the small farm, remuneration is 450 marks = (1) 
for the owner — 350 + (2) 100 marks to his wife's parents, 
who substitute for hired labour (pp. 72-73). [I must say 
that the substitution is cheap!] 

The medium farm is said to be on the modern level as well, 
and is in general quite faultless, not worse than the big farm. 

(No detailed data on machinery!!) 

The village has an amalgamated dairy, and there is 
joint use of machinery, joint purchase of fertilisers, etc. 

About Group III we learn only that the big farm is excel- 
lently run (p. 74) [The entire description of Group III 
is highly superficial (pp. 74-77).] 

Stumpfe's conclusion: the smaller the holding, theY\|| 
larger the rent (p. 77). " 

...There is not the slightest doubt that on peasant 
farms where the owner takes due care of the progress 
of operations or takes part in them himself, the work 
is performed qualitatively and quantitatively very || 
differently from the way it is done on the landowners' 
estates, with the exception, perhaps, of the quanti- 
tative side in case of piecework (p. 78). 

...which is why, despite the partially insignificant gross 
income, the net profit of the small farms was still higher... 
(p. 78). 

Group I. Receipts in marks from (p. 78) 

livestock _ , . 

cropping farming general total 

total per total per total per total per 
y 4 ha y 4 ha l / 4 ha l / 4 ha 

Big farm 63 , 6 5 2 2 8 . 37 2 7 , 2 8 9 1 2. « 773 0. 34 91,715 40. 89 
Medium " 1,257 15. 14 758 9. 13 — — 2,015 24. 27 

Small " 6 1 8 1 5 . 46 4 91 12 . 27 — 1,10 9 2 7. 72 



238 



V. I. LENIN 



etc., etc., the same thing all over again. 
II The peasant is also able to slash his expenses in 
" the household budget (p. 80), etc. 
!! { The same: p. 83 ("living within their means") 
He argues that there is a tendency on the part of sugar and 
distillation enterprises to branch out from agriculture, etc., 
and that co-operatives place the advantages also within 
reach of the small farms (p. 85), etc. (cf. D av i d — echoes this). 

The machine does not play the same part in agriculture 
(cf. David\). 

"It is at any rate beyond doubt that the steam 
plough does not at all reduce production costs" (p. 87) 
(cf. Bensing and Fischer) 

The small farmer does the repairs him- 
self (!!) (p. 92) and his implements last longer 
(p. 92) — "This is undoubtedly also connected with 
the higher earnings of artisans on the big farms (not 
because the big ones pay more, but because) there 
are all sorts of discards of tools and wood ends, which 
would be in use on a small farm for a long time yet 
(!!). In general, this effort to make use even of the 
smallest objects, this possibility of pressing down 
to a minimum expenses on the farm's small current 
II requirements is an important characteristic advantage 
of the small farm..." (p. 92). 

The Social-Democrats have also issued their threats 
in the countryside — there will be strikes as well, and 
all this is a much greater danger to the big farms (94). 
The big farmer's expenses on labour are higher, 
because he has to feed whole families of labourers, 
whereas the small farmer for the most part takes 
on unmarried men, and although the labourer's 
food is considerably better on the peasant farms 
and is, consequently, costlier than on the land- 
owners' estates, we have here, on the other hand, 
the resultant much higher productivity of labour 
by young, strong and well-fed labourers, and this 
fact is of great importance, especially since much 
N.B. account has to be taken also of the incentive and 
educational element in the owner's preliminary 
and joint work (p. 95). 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



239 



}' 



"All the organisation of the work on the big and 
small farms, in Silesia at least, is such that there 
is decidedly no reason to doubt the N.B. 
lower cost of labour on the peasant farms" (p. 96). 

— again there is mention of the stimulating 
influence of the labour of the owner and his 
children (p. 96). The peasants provide better 
food for the farm-hands. 

Disability and old-age insurance is another 
burden on the big farm: 

Group II 

j" total 490 marks big farm O.30 marks 1 

1 34 medium " 0. 16 " r per Morgen 

I 0 " small "0 "J 

(p. 101) The Social-Democrat gentlemen have 
blundered badly over agriculture.... 

p. 102. Sering on settlement ("putting labour at 
the disposal" of the landowning gentlemen!!), — 
and "Landed estates are unable to compete with 
the immense capital which is contained in the 
hands and feet of these men [the settlers]" 
(Sering, quoted p. 102). 

p. 106: the big farms are mostly superior in 
commercial terms, but the co-operatives will help 
the peasant. 

p. 108: the peasants usually sell their corn and 
livestock less profitably [but that is said to 
be balanced out by other things]. 

"It is not the German Junker that is the enemy 
of the peasant; the two have, apart from inessen- 
tial issues which are mostly of internal importance, 
the same interests and the same adversaries. This N.B. 
is a conviction which has lately been strongly 
making its way" (p. 1 1 3). 



U ! 



There you have Stumpfe! 



Written between June 1901 
and March 1903 

First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



Printed from the original 



240 



V. I. LENIN 



B 



REMARKS ON E. STUMPFE'S BOOK, 
SMALL HOLDINGS AND GRAIN PRICES 



Dr. Emil Stumpfe (Der kleine Grundbesitz und die Getrei- 
depreise. Leipzig 1897, Band III, Heft 2 der Staats- und 
Sozialwissenschaftliche Beitrdge von Miaskowski*) gives 
a rather interesting summary of quite extensive budgetary 
data on small farms (181 under-10-ha farms) in various 
parts of Germany, but only on their sale and purchase 
of farm products. 

Stumpfe argues with David (Neue Zeit No. 36, 1894/5), 
who took the data of the Hessen Inquiry and reckoned the 
sales and purchases. (Kiihn simply reckoned the sales per 
hectare). Stumpfe deducts 33-40% as the cost of fabrication 
from the purchase price, on the plea that you cannot take 
the price of the purchased product but only the price of 
the raw material which has gone into the making of the 
product!! This approach (an absurd one) spoils the whole 
work terribly. (Although this recalculation is done only 
when it gives a different result!) 



N.B.: 



However, I shall go over the cases of 
this recalculation, which the author always 
indicates: No. 19 (Baden, 2-3 ha), the 
minus becomes a plus, No. 31 (Baden 
2-3 ha), same thing, No. 50, the minus 
remains, No. 112, Wiirttemberg 2-3 ha 



reckoning 
the sum 



of all types of 
pluses 
and 
minuses 



Miaskowski's Contribution to State and Social Science. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



241 



No. 40 still plus 
No. 41 same 



No. 151 
No. 152 



No. 143 still plus 



No. 48 

No. 49 

No. 51 

No. 60 

No. 75 

No. 79 

No. 94 

No. 98 

No. 100 

No. Ill 



Nos. 179-181 



No. 169 
No. 170 
No. 171 
No. 172 
No. 173 
No. 174 
No. 175 



Nos. 154-161 



This means that only in three cases has Stumpfe's absurd 
approach distorted the state of affairs, by turning an overall 
minus (excess of purchases over sales) into a plus. 

In the vast majority of cases, the result is still an overall 
minus. (Stumpfe calculates three types of plus and minus, 
separately for cereals (I), livestock products (III) and the 
rest (II)). 

That is why I find that I can take Stumpfe's table with 
its conclusions on the pluses and minuses (sales and pur- 
chases, as a sum total), making note of three corrections. 

Stumpfe makes a separate comparison of sales and pur- 
chases in I, II and III: 

I cereals and pulses giving tables for 



Stumpfe then gives separate results for the states, sepa- 
rating southern Germany (Baden 60*), Hessen 
44, Wiirttemberg 12 + Bavaria) from northern Ger- 
many (Saxony 6 + 28, Silesia 24, Hannover 7). I take 
only the results for southern and northern Germany. 

(On 52 of these Stumpfe collected himself!!: 24 in Silesia 
+ 28 in the Kingdom of Saxony.) 

*) The number of under-10-ha farms. Stumpfe takes 
only the under- 10-ha farms, putting the over-10-ha farms 
in a special annexe. 



II all other cropping products 
III livestock products 



(1) I 

(2) I + II 

(3) I + II + III 



242 



V. I. LENIN 



Farms 




Southern and 
northern 
Germany 


Number 

Ul 1 OLL IIlO 


M 
over 
14 


ouths 

under 
years 






Southern 


20 


56 


50 


Under / na 


< 


Northern 


7 


19 


12 






2 


27 


75 


62 






Southern 


5 


19 


10 


•11/ o 1 

1 h- A na 




Northern 


7 


19 


12 






2 


12 


38 


22 






Southern 


21 


66 


47 


/-o na 




Northern 


9 


23 


19 






2 


30 


89 


66 






Southern 


10 


40 


17 


3-4 




Northern 


12 


32 


24 






2 


22 


72 


41 






Southern 


26 


103 


55 


4-b 




Northern 


(25) 


(74) 


(49) 






2 


51 


177 


104 






Southern 


23 


102 


31 


6-8 




Northern 


2 


7 


4 






2 


25 


109 


35 






Southern 


19 


88 


39 


8-10 ha 




Northern 


7 


25 


18 






2 


26 


113 


57 



In general, Stumpfe's book is a grossly biased defence 
of taxes. 

In his opening pages, Stumpfe analyses the question 
of the effect corn prices have on those of other farm products, 
insisting (correctly) on the tremendous and all-decisive 
importance of corn prices. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



243 



On how many 

farms sales 
greater ( + ) or 
purchases greater ( — ) 
+ 


Total 
farmland 


Per 
adults 


ha 

children 


Adults + 
children 
(2 children= 
1 adult 


6 
7 


4 
— 


24.54 

13-06 


2-28 
1-45 


2 

0-9 


3-30 
1-9 


13 


14 










3 
7 


2 
— 


8-73 
13-06 


2-2 
1-45 


1-1 
0.9 


2. 7 
1-9 


10 


2 










16*) 
9 


5 
- 


52.83 
24.42 


1-25 
O.94 


0-89 
0-77 


1-69 
1-32 


25*) 


5 










9 

12 


1 
1 


37.20 

42.93 


1-07 
O.74 


O.45 
0-55 


1-29 
1-01 


21 


1 










26 
25 


— 


131.69 
120.75 


0-78 
0.61 


0-41 
0.40 


0-98 
0.81 


51 












22 
2 


1 


156.99 
14-50 


0-65 
0-48 


0-20 
0.27 


0-75 
0-61 


24 


1 










19 
7 




168. 88 
60. 75 


0-52 
0.41 


0-23 
0-28 


0-63 
0-55 


26 













: ) Stumpfe has 19 and 2, and 2 of 28 and 2. 



244 



V. I. LENIN 



The area under cereals in Germany in 1878 — 52. 59 % of 

total farm- 
land 

1883—53.46% 
1893—54.37% 



Stumpfe's 
italics 



The extension of the area under other 
cereals (and of livestock farming correspond- 
ingly) is rapidly leading to their respective 
overproduction, which tends again to even 
out prices (cf. Marx on Smith. But Stumpfe 
does not quote Marx and does not apply 
the theory of rent to the question) 

"Thus, there is good ground for the thesis 
that there can be no prolonged disproportions 
in the rent yielded by the several crops per 
area unit, and that a levelling off must follow 
sooner or later" (p. 15). 

Stumpfe also analyses the prices of livestock products, 
arguing along the same lines. 

Stumpfe polemises with Reichschancellor Hohenlohe, 
who said on March 29, 1895, that only the over-12-ha 
farms wanted higher prices, that is, only 4 million 
out of the 19 million agricultural population, reckoning 
3.5 persons per farm. Stumpfe makes roughly the following 
estimation of the agricultural population (1882 data) 
(p. 40) 

millions of agricultural 
population 



Parcel farms under 2 ha 

Small " 2 to 5 ha 

Medium " 5 to 20 ha 

Big-peasant 20 to 100 ha 

Big " over 100 ha 



0. 6 X 3. 5 = 2.! mil 
0. 99 X 4.5 = 4.4 
0.96 X 7 =6.7 
0-29 X 13 = 3.7 

0. 025 X 90 = 2. 2 



ion 



19.4 million 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



245 



Stumpfe believes that there is no more 
than 0.6 million agricultural population 
on the 3 millions of under-2-ha farms. 
"The owners of under-l-ha parcel farms ... 
are mostly craftsmen, small industrialists, 
factory workers, etc., consequently, any- 
thing but peasants or independent farm 
owners" (p. 39). 

3.5 persons per farm with less than 
2 ha, for "after all, grown up children 
mostly go into employment right away" 
(p. 40). 

Here are the statistics of family size, according to Stumpfe' s 
data: 



The number per farm was (p. 82) 



Groups 


Number 


Adults 


Children 


Total 


of farms 








o- 1V2 


15 


2-5 


2 


4-5 


IV2- 2 


12 


3-16 


2-6 


5-78 


2- 3 


30 


3 


2-2 


5-2 


3- 4 


22 


3-27 


1-86 


5.1 


4- 6 


49 


3-6 


2-1 


5-7 


6- 8 


25 


4-3 


1.4 


5-7 


8-10 


26 


4-34 


2-2 


6. 5 


10-20 


37 


6 


2 


8 


20 and over 


12 


8.75 


2-1 


10-85 



And Stumpfe concluded: the "average" for the 5 to 20 ha 
group will be precisely about 7, for the 20 to 100 ha, about 
13, if it is about 11 for the 20 to 30 ha group. 

(A funny character! he's forgotten all about hired 
labour!!) 

(Stumpfe's distribution of agricultural population is 
of some interest for the picture of hired labour.) 

He says that all peasants — including the labourers \ , 
on the big farms!! — all want higher corn prices. J ' 

Stumpfe himself suspects that the data he has collected 
(for Silesia, etc., see above*) will appear unlikely (p. 50), 



Sic! 

Stumpfe says 
something 

quite different 
on another 
occasion! 



See p. 241.— Ed. 



246 



V. I. LENIN 



and so he defends himself in advance: why is it that, accord- 
ing to his data, the conditions in northern Germany are 
much better, when southern Germany is regarded as being 
more civilised? 

And Stumpfe attacks southern Germany "...incred- 
ible fragmentation of holdings" (p. 48)— 10-12-20 
parcels per hectare! — hence "the intensified supply 
of farms with labour everywhere" (p. 49) — in 
general the population in the south is much more 
static (p. 49) — see, he says, the Bavarian Inquiry 
of 1 89 5, the new one! — a prevalence of three- 
field farming (Bavaria; inquiry) — "great back- 
wardness of the whole economy" (p. 51), very 
frequently the system of compulsory crop rotation 
still in evidence, furthermore "fragmentation and 
stripping of farmlands prevent or hamper any 
kind of melioration" (p. 52), frequently make 
almost impossible the introduction and use of 
ha-ha!! these new remarkably improved agricultural imple- 
ments (p. 52), for example, out of 24 Bavarian 
communities only 4 use the seed drill. "The advan- 
haha! ^ a ^ es °^ f arm i n g with the use of the seed drill are 
so well-known and incontestable" (p. 52) etc., 
and other machines are rare too, old ploughs are 
"often of the most primitive form" (p. 52), rollers 

, are unknown, etc This backwardness in machine 

' and technical equipment.... 



— not a single centrifuge (p. 53) in the places described 
by the South-German inquiries. "This technical backward- 
ness is crowned" with reports from Christazhofen and Inger- 
kingen of threshing by horses (on horseback) — "such is the 
antediluvian method of husking grain" — Stumpfe exclaims. 

...Fertilising methods leave very much to be desired 
(53), etc. 

' — meanwhile, quotations from The Condition of the 
Peasants, in favour of small farms in the north (pp. 54-55). 
I must say these quotations look very much like Bulga- 

^kov's! Make a comparison] 



ha-ha! 




CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 247 



In Silesia, peasants have seed drills, manure spreaders, 
etc., etc. (p. 55), the crop rotation system prevails, rollers 
(pp. 56-57). 

"One need only list these very important 
(sic!) implements to discover the extremely 
different state of farming in southern and 
northern Germany" (p. 57). Then "there is 
the usual under-estimation" (p. 58) — in the 
north, the "good example" (p. 59) set by the 
landowners (sic!), the "teachers" of the peas- 
ants (!), a model, "pioneers in farming" 
(p. 59)! As for the South, it more or less 
completely lacks big farms (p. 60). 

Written not earlier 
than April 1902- 
not later than April 1903 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXII 



n 

Oh, 
Herr 
Stumpfe!! 



248 



REMARKS ON G. FISCHER'S WORK, 
THE SOCIAL IMPORTANCE 
OF MA CHINES Y IN A GRICUL TURE 93 

Gustav Fischer. Die sociale Bedeutung der Maschinen in der 
Landwirtschaft. Leipzig 1902. (Schmollers Forschungen, 
XX. Band, 5. Heft.) 

The introduction quotes the writings of Social-Demo- 
crats on small farming. Among them Sering, The 
Agrarian Question and Socialism (con Kautsky), Schmol- 
ler's Jahrbuch fiir Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volks- 
wirtschaft.* Band 23, 4. Heft. 

Sering has already said that agriculture is unlike indus- 
try, especially in the matter of machinery. 

Chapter I. "The Cost of Machine Labour and the Limits 
of Its Profitability". 

"It was on the big farms that conditions first existed for 
the use of agricultural machinery" (p. 4) — initially even 
the manufacturers were concerned only with machinery 
for the big farms. Now they supply machines for the small 
ones as well. 

The author wants to discover the limits for these new 
machines according to the new data. 

Here is the result of r Kautsky on p. 94 of his Agrarian 
his calculations Question says, that, according to 

(pp. 24-25) < Kraft, the limits of full use are 

a) 1,0 0 0 ha; and b) 7 0 ha 
. (p. 5) 



Yearbook for Legislation, Administration and National Economy. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 249 



















machine 










Limit of 


labour 


... 

manual ) 


This 




lype or machine 


economic 


under 


labour 


no full 
IS IU11 


A A 


11 flPTll 1 Tl P >i *i 


full USP*) 






see 






marks 


marks 




below 




ha 


per ha 


per ha 


ha 




(a) Steam plough (20 h.p.) 


192 


34 


51-20 


500 




Steam plough (12 h.p.) 


121 


33. 8 


42. 7 


250 




Broadcast sower 


— 


0-88 


O.44 ^ 


>360 


ha 


Seed drill (3.766 m) 


21.6 


2-56 


6.04 


360 


17 


(P) Seed drill (1.88 m) 


13.6 


3.48 


6.04 


160 


8-8 


Manure spreader 


— 


1-12 


0.55 > 


• 280 




Cultivator (3.766 m) 


4 


2 -13 


16 


180 


3-7 


Cultivator (2.0 m) 


1-2 


2-06 


16 


75 


1-1 


One-row cultivator 


0-27 


4-2 


16 


22-5 


0-23 


Hay mower 


13. 4 


3-5 


5 


58 


3-4 




(or 6. 7 ) 










Reaper with self-throw- 












ing 


9-5 


6. 9 


11 


76 


7.1 


((3) Reaper-binder 




U-25 


11 


76 


24. 3 




s 


7 n 

'•0 


11 


68 




Tedder 


A.g 


6-3 


12.5 


35 


O.95 




(or 1. 5 ) 








Horse-drawn rake with 


13.8 


1 


1-6 


90 


8.0O 


seat 


(or 6.9) 










ditto without seat 


9.45 


1-2 


1-6 


67. 5 


3.9(1.9) 



(or 4.73) 



The author calculates his limits of usefulness as follows: 
he takes performance per day (5 ha per steam plough), 
determines the price of manual (resp. with the use of a team) 
labour in that time, and calculates the minimum number 
of days of machine work required for the price to be the 
same. This minimum (in terms of ha) is his limit. 

(Hence, that is the minimum limit where the machine 
is still not cheaper than manual labour.) 

The author frequently quotes Bensing (counter- 
ing his statements, for instance, with that of Rim- 
pau, to the effect that a horse-drawn plough works 
as well as the steam plough, provided it ploughs f 
to the same depth: p. 8). 

Potato planters are still not feasible (the potatoes 
vary in size, and weigh 8 centners to 'A ha, while 



See p. 250.— Ed. 



250 



V. I. LENIN 



seed-grain comes to less than 1 centner). But one 
recent invention is a hole potato-planter which 
makes regular holes, helps to furrow and hoe, 
although the potato is inserted by hand (p. 11). 
N.B. Saves labour, and the income increase is reckoned 
at 5% (p. 12). 

There has been no success so far in making reasonably 
good potato and beet lifters. 



Chapter II. "The Possibilities of Using Machinery on Small 



Farms". 



(p. 27) 



Cereals 



Su g ar- h eet "'°%*°> 



Reduction of costs 
per hectare 17-52 marks: 52 cent- 
ners 
(crop) 



As compared with 
manual labour 

per centner 



0-36 marks 

per centner 



30. 



78 



ners) 



•30 



0.05 (:80)0.io 
(640 cent- (cent- 



ners) 



Consequently, the cost reduction is not large. This, he 
says, is against Bensing, for he fails to debit to the machine 
costs the cost of the teams (p. 28) — "not quite right". 

Considering that the cost of the teams does not apply 
to some machines set into motion by draught animals (for 
the cattle is there anyway, and is not fully used), we find 
the limits of economic usefulness still further reduced 
(p. 28) (see, AA in table*) 

"It goes without saying that farmers whose hold- 
ing hardly, if at all, allows them to use machinery 
because of its size, are at a disadvantage, as com- 
pared with those who attain the highest possible use 
of machinery or are close to it, in view of the fact 
that the per-hectare cost of using machinery does 



*See p. 249.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



251 



not fall in proportion to the time of use, but at first 
drops sharply and then slower and slower" (p. 29). 
For instance, a mower costs 5. 94 Mk per ha for 8 days 

5.24 " per ha for 20 days 
"...70 pfennigs per hectare is, of course, not much" ha-ha! 

<P- 30) - 

Moreover, the "really" lower % of machine depreciation 
should be allowed the small farmer: he takes more care. 
See, he says, Auhagen,* Stumpfe,** Herkner (!) (The 
Labour Problem, Berlin, 1897, p. 226). 

The small farmer can make co-operative use of machinery: 
hire of machinery (thresher very often, p. 31) (it is also 
most convenient with regard to the steam plough, p. 32) 
(although the small one cannot use the steam plough even 
on hire: p. 33, his fields are not long enough). 

N.B. 
cf. 
Klawki!! 
N.B. 



The hiring out of machinery ... is very com- 
mon (p. 33). "The big landowner lets ... 
his small neighbours ... use his seed drill on 
hire".... 



The co-operatives are developed to a greater 
extent than the statistics show. In 1890, Bavaria had 282 
machine (thresher) co-operatives. But very many farms 
pool machines privately. 



Chapter III. "T/ie Importance of Machinery for the Labour 
Problem". 



Machines are frequently introduced, even when they 
are more expensive (seeders, etc.) because of the labour 
shortage. Can the machines help when there is a shortage 
of labour? 

Most say: yes (p. 37). Von der Holtz is sceptical (they tend 
to increase winter unemployment, etc.). 

Here is the author's calculation of the labour saving 
through machinery: (p. 39) 



*See p. 130.— Ed. 
* See p. 238.— Ed. 



252 



V. I. LENIN 





ha worked per day 


this 
requires 


for equal 
performance 
by manual 
labour 


saving in 
labour 
through 
machinery 


men 


youngsters or women 


man-days 


youngsters- or 
women-days 


man-days 


youngsters- or 
women-days 


Broadcast sower 


9 


1 


— 


2 


— 


1 




Seed drill 3. 77 m 


9 


4 




2 




2 




Seed drill 1. 88 m 


4 


3 




1 




2 




Manure spreader 


10 


1 


1 


2. 2 




1-2 


—1 


Cultivator 3. 7 m 


9 


3 






120 


—3 


120 


Cultivator c. 2. 00 m 


3 -75 


1 


1 




50 


—1 


49 


Hay mower 


3. 2 


1 




8 




7 




Reaper with self-throwing 


3-8 


1 


1 


8 




7 


—1 


Reaper-binder 


3-8 


1 


1 


8 


8 


7 


7 


Reaper with manual rake 


3. 4 


2 




7 




5 




Beet lifter 


1-7 


2 


9 




13 


—2 


4 


Tedder 


7 


1 






14 


—1 


14 


Horse-drawn rake with seat 


6 


1 






4-8 


—1 


4-8 


ditto without seat 


4-5 


1 






3-6 


—1 


3-6 



"With the exception of the seed drill, which is used 
in the spring and autumn seasons, and the manure spread- 
er, which requires a roughly similar application of la- 
bour, all the machines, therefore, show a saving of labour, 
as compared with manual operations" (p. 38). 

especially the cultivator (very important) 

and the reaper — which is why it is used with the 
binder, even if it is more expensive (there are few hands 
during the harvesting!). The same goes for the steam plough. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



253 



"All the above-mentioned machines have the advantage 
of making the farmer more independent of the demand 
for labour. He can oppose the excessive wage demands 
at whose mercy he would otherwise have been placed 
without being able to offer any resistance, and, what 
is much more important, he can perform operations 
for which he would otherwise not have found any labour 
at all" (p. 40). 

The manure spreader works better, more evenly, than 
the unskilled labourer. 

The seed drill helps to save seed stock. 

"The milk separator is also one of those machines which 
yield a qualitative performance coefficient unattainable 
under manual labour" (p. 41). In 1900, Germany had 2,841 
dairy co-operatives. 

The 1895 statistics show furthermore that it was the 
peasant farms that led in the absolute number of partici- 
pants in them, whereas the large farms, at any rate, are 
still very far ahead in proportion to their total. 

"Participation in dairy co-operatives or amalgamated 
dairies" 



"However, the relatively insignificant partici- 
pation of the small farms in dairy co-operatives 
is partly due to the fact that they are mostly situat- f ~ 
ed on the immediate outskirts of towns and sell • • 
more of their milk than large farms to urban buyers, 
without processing it" (p. 41). 

The thresher leads to a substitution of free labour- 
ers for indentured day labourers who do the thresh- 
ing (p. 42) (cf. Max Weber). Payment in kind is 
supplanted by payment in cash — "as a result of 
which even the smaller holder becomes more depend- 



(p. 41) 



under 2 ha 
2 to 5 ha 
5 to 20 ha 
20 to 100 ha 
100 ha and over 



10,300 
31,819 
53,597 
43,561 
8,805 



farms 




254 



V. I. LENIN 



N.B. ent on ready cash than ever before Such are 

the socially unfavourable consequences of the 
introduction of the thresher" (p. 42). 
Agricultural machines demand more intelligent workers 
(as compared to the industrial??)... 

Chapter IV. "Electricity in Agriculture". 

The author finds the expectations of Kautsky and Prings- 
heim exaggerated, gives two examples of actual use of 
electricity (on royal estates in 1895-96), contests one calcu- 
lation, obtaining a higher cost of production instead of the 
lower one (inferred by the author of a report on the royal 
estates) and says that "electrification of farming is not yet 
able to yield any considerable reduction of costs, although 
it does provide all sorts of conveniences and comforts for 
the performance of operations" (p. 51). 

Is it cheaper for the big farms? Not much, for the motors 
in agriculture are all too small. 

The substitution of electric motors for field machines 
(Pringsheim) is a realm of speculation. 

Finale: 

"The production of electric power will remain cheapest 
at the big central stations, with which the small farmer 
can just as easily obtain a connection as the big one. The 
advantages secured by the latter from a somewhat better use 
of motors and any possible small rebate that he may be 
given will be insignificant. That is why any shift of social 
relations to the detriment of small farming should not be 
expected" (p. 54). 

Chapter V. "Machinery in North- American Agriculture" 

The limit of the economic usefulness of machines is (must 
be) even lower, because wages are higher. 

There is the most rapid growth of medium farms 
(George K. Holmes on the progress of American agriculture 
in Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture, 
1899). 

^320 acres=128 ha is taken to be a medium farm,\ 
vbecause the whole of farming is extensive: p. 58./ 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



255 



There is nowhere any swallowing up of the small by the 
big (p. 62), machines cannot give the big farms the edge 
they do in industry (p. 63). 

The farms will be increasingly smaller with the growth 
of intensiveness. 

The small farms have the same machines as the big ones. 

Example: 300-320 acres 1 plough 1 disc 1 seed 

with seat harrow drill 
and 6,500 acres 22 " 32 " 10 " 

etc. (Fischer sees no advantages from diversified machin- 
ery!) 

"Thus, large-scale farming there does not obtain any 
advantages from the use of machinery" (p. 59)? 

The small holder is more careful, more painstaking, 
he saves the $100 which the big farmer pays to his 
labourers as a bonus for the best cultivated lots, etc. 
(p. 59). 

The large wheat farms, with very extensive farming, 
are to be found only in North Dakota. 

Greater use? (156 acres per binder in one case, and 
65 acres, on a small farm), but that is "only little" ?! 
(p. 61). 



Final conclusions (pp. 64-66) 

...the machines are used mostly because of the labour 
shortage; more and more are being introduced on the small 
farms 



% increase from 1882 to 1895 (p. 65) 







Steam 
ploughs 


Seed 
drills 


Reapers 


Steam 
threshers 


Other 
threshers 


under 2 


ha 


33 


211 


410 


733 


145 


2- 5 


ha 


257 


187 


669 


414 


187 


5- 20 


ha 


171 


226 


352 


214 


130 


20- 100 


ha 


201 


169 


83 


160 


57 


over 100 


ha 


87 


76 


9 


83 


1 



256 



V. I. LENIN 



ha-ha! 



Sic! 



"This comparison shows that the percentage 
increase in the number of farms using machinery 
among the small farms ... is considerably greater 
than among the big ones...." 

...These figures best of all prove (!?) that machin- 
ery in agriculture is not at all a domain of the big 
farms (p. 66), for there is a rapid growth in the 
understanding of its importance and the possi- 
bility of its use even on the parcel farms. 



Written in 1902 

First printed in the 
Fourth Russian edition 
of the Collected Works 



Printed from the original 



257 



NOTE ON P. TUROT'S BOOK, 
AGRICULTURAL INQUIRY 
1866-1870 94 

Paul Turot, Enquete agricole de 1866-1870, resumee par... 
Paris 1877. 

The Inquiry consisted of 33 volumes, which were not on 
sale. The first 4 volumes gave a general summary of which 
a resume was made by Mr. Turot. Although his work has 
been "crowned" with a gold medal, it is on the lowest pos- 
sible level. It is not a summary of the Inquiry data, but 
a summary of the "data on the decisions" of the central 
commission in charge of the Inquiry. And its decisions are 
such, for instance, as that machinery should be imported 
duty-free, that inventors must be rewarded (pp. 84-87: no 
data at all on the use of machinery!!), — that labour cards, 
should not be introduced (pp. 81-84), etc. The rest of the 
chapters can be judged from the content of this, "Chapter 
III. Wages. Piece Work" (content — nil). 

No wonder its pages remain uncut (at the British Museum). 

Written not earlier than April 1902- 
not later than April 1903 

First printed in the 
Fourth Russian edition Printed from the original 

of the Collected Works 



258 



REMARKS ON H. BAUDRILLART'S BOOK, 

THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION 
OF FRANCE. 
PART III. 

THE POPULATION OF THE SOUTH 95 

Baudrillart (Henri), Les populations agricoles de la France. 
3-me serie. Les populations du Midi. Paris 1893. 

Only some small notes can be made while looking through 
this book, which is, written in the same style and spirit 
as the earlier volumes. 

Les bouches-du-Rhdne. The city of Marseilles. Very 
superficial description of agriculture. Note is made of the 
common practice of share-cropping (nietayer, meger). Among 
others: le comte de Tourdonnet, Etude sur le metayage en 
France* (without any indication of time or place). 

For example. "...The peasant farmers, who share the 
status of small holder and rural labourer, are fairly well 
off" — for instance, outlays are 510 francs (husband + 
wife), receipts = 850 francs. "Consequently, a household 
is able (!!!) to live in a comfortable (!!) manner, having 
500 francs and making savings" (!!). That's Baudrillart 
all over! 

Pp. 267-69 on "the solidarity" of agriculture (at Herault) 
and industry (cloth manufacture) — for instance, the factory 
at Villeneuvette (100 men + 300 women). The same line 
of employers since 1792 (Maistre), the workers are at the 
factory all their lives, "Christian" spirit in the master's 



Count de Tourdonnet, An Essay on Share-cropping in France. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



259 



attitude to his workers. The owner of the factory "runs" 
it through "a small commune, with the aid of the municipal 
council which has sprung from its midst [of the factory 
management]", etc. Such is Baudrillart! Volume Three 
especially appears to be incredibly dry, monotonous, 
matter-of-fact and absolutely empty. It is quite impossible 
and unnecessary to read the meanderings of this "titled old 
man", and only "critics" of the Bulgakov stripe can take 
such a writer seriously. 

Written not earlier than 1901- 
not later than January 1903 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXII 



260 



REMARKS ON E. COULET'S BOOK 

Elie Coulet, Le mouvement syndical et cooperatif dans 
V agriculture frangaise. La federation agricole (these pour 
le doctorat). Montpellier 1898.* 

[Contains a bibliography; there are indications of rural 
labourers being expelled by the syndicates; not a Socialist 
but appears to be a "Katheder", judging from a bird's-eye 
view. Rouanet's source. There seems to be some pretty 
interesting data there,] 



Written before February 10 (23), 1903 

First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXII 



Printed from the original 



* The Syndicalist and Co-operative Movement in French Agriculture. The 
Agricultural Federation. (Doctoral thesis.) — Ed. 



261 



REMARKS ON G. ROUANET'S ARTICLE, 
"ON THE DANGER AND THE FUTURE 
OF AGRICULTURAL SYNDICATES" 

Revue socialiste*) (Vol. 29) February 1899 
(pp. 219-37) 

(Revue economique. "Du danger et de l'avenir des syndicats 
agricoles" par M. G u s t av e Rouanet.) 

quotes Rocquigny, p. 42 in Les syndicats agricoles 96 
G. Rouanefs article was written on Elie CouleVs book. 97 
G. Rouanet slights the "syndicates" as the handiwork of the 
"agrarian party" — they consist mainly of large and 
middle landowners; their efforts in favour of the labourers 
are ridiculously insignificant; their aim: a landowners' 
trust, an association for marketing farm produce; their 
political programme: the interests of the big landowners, 
who are leading all this movement, carrying the small 
farmers and labourers with them, and whose goal is to 
establish complete domination of the state by the big 
landowners' party. 

Like all trusts, the syndicates are working assiduously 
in favour of socialism. 

Out of 1,3 91 syndicates with 438,596 members (1897 
were established: 

"societies against accidents at work: one; orphan- 
N.B. ages — one; employment agencies and offices: thir- 
teen; courts of arbitration, reconciliation chambers: 
three; societies for aid to manual labour: two; 
N.B. aid in kind (gifts of things to children) — one; aid 



*) Manager: M. Rodolphe Simon. (78 Passage Choiseul, 
Paris) 1 franc an issue. Free: contents since 1885. 



262 



V. I. LENIN 



in supply of implements (service for the hire of 
tools and farming implements): two" (p. 225) and 
Rouanet ridicules Deschanel. 98 

Rouanet repeatedly quotes Rocquigny, mentioning by the 
way that his democratie rurale = 300,000 large land- 
owners!! (p. 231). 

Written before February 10 (23), 
1903 



First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXII 



Printed from the original 



263 



ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM NOSSIG'S BOOK" 

Nossig (Revision des Sozialismus. Band II. Die 
moderne Agrarfrage*) gives the following interesting data 
on restoring soil fertility. 

Grandeau (manager of the Station agronomique de l'Est) 
believes that there are 25 million ha of farmland in France 

taken from the land annually: given 
metric tons same 

thousands 

Nitrogen 613,000 285 1 fertilisers produced 

Phosphoric acid 298,000 147 I by 49 million head 

Potash 827,000 549 [ of cattle (according 

— + J to Tisserand) 

That is the total " 
cattle, but not all 
should be reckoned in 
- terms of fertiliser! 
i.e., the deficit averages about 50 per cent! (p. 101) 
And the artificial fertilisers do not, by a long shot, make 
up for all that is taken from the soil. 

In Britain, an average of 1. 9 million centners of phos- 
phoric acid is taken from the soil, while guano and bone 
fertiliser cover only one-half (p. 109). 

Thus, only the private owners, and not the land, have 
benefited from intensive agriculture with the use of 
artificial fertilisers (p. 109). 

It is now being recognised that mineral and artificial 
fertilisers alone are not enough. 



Revision of Socialism, Vol. II, The Contemporary Agrarian Question. — Ed. 



264 



V. I. LENIN 



In the past, they wanted to substitute them 

(p. Ill) by 125 kg of phosphoric acid 
+ 60 kg of nitrogen 
+ 60 kg of potash 

It is now recognised that mineral fertilisers alone tend 
to dry up the soil, and that an addition of manure is also 
necessary. 

Grandeau believes that out of 60,000 kg there must be at 
least 

2 0,00 0 kg of natural fertiliser. 

Grandeau: Annalles de la Station agronomique de VEst. 
Deherain: Les plantes de grande culture* 
especially pp. 27-29 (also 188-93). 

i The result arrived at by Nossig (who makes use of the 
> latest agronomical data, and cites Grandeau, Deherain, 
t Wollny, Hellriegel, Diinckelberg, Cohn, and many others) 
is that even intensive farming frequently comes to plun- 
dering the soil. 

It increases yields temporarily, but fails to bring about 
a long-term and stable increase in soil fertility. 
/ Human fertilisers must also be returned to the land 
V (pp. 102, 108, 112). 



Written before February 10 (23), 1903 

First published in 1932 
in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



Printed from the original 



* Grandeau, Annals of the East Agronomic Station; Deherain, Major Crop 
Plants. —Ed. 



265 



CRITICAL REMARKS ON E. DAVID'S BOOK, 
SOCIALISM AND AGRICULTURE™ 

A 

David. 

20 Marxism has "simply" "applied" the laws 

of industry to agriculture. 
23 A reference to "T h e Peasant Barb a- 

nans . 

28 "Success" (of agitation among peasants for 

Marxist programme) = zero. 



typical narrow-mindedness of the 
opportunist: he starts out with the 
International resolutions, instead of 
a theoretical analysis. 



f The Communist Manifesto is ignored. ~l 
■S Utopian socialism as well r 
I and Sismondi, etc. J 

33 Engels's Prefatory Note to the Peasant 

War left out 

33 In Vol. I Marx gives very little attention 

to agriculture. 

36 Improvement of the peasants' condition 

in the third quarter of the 19th century 
clay floors, etc., have 



(ciay iioors, etc., nave \ 
disappeared I 
south and west. / 



"The peasantry" on "the upgrade" 
(and not the peasant bourgeoisie??) \ 

43 Engels in 1894 101 — "das Heitere"— J he 

Rettungsvorschlage — "unheilbarer / got 

Widerspruch" (Absturz ersparen)** it! 



* 



See pp. 111-15.— Ed. 
What Lenin meant wai 
(das Heitere) is that E: 
hopeless condition (absoluten Rettungslosigkeit des Bauern), puts forward 



** What Lenin meant was the following statement by David: "The funny 
thing (das Heitere) is that Engels, while pointing to the peasant's absolutely 



266 



V. I. LENIN 



49 A "heavy blow" at the Marxist doctrine: 

1895 census, the advance of the middle 
peasantry. 

49 Note. Definition of the small farm = 

without permanent employment of outside 
labour and without collateral employment 
below: dwarf farms 

above: medium farms (the owner also works) 
big farms (owner's supervision) 

51 1895 census: supplanting of large- 
scale by small-scale production(l) 

52 Kautsky's Agrarian Question — "desperate 
attempt" 



60 



52: the question of landed property- 
in Vol. II 



53 Hertz annihilated Kautsky. Bernstein 

56 Small-scale production is superior in the 
intensive branches: the transition to inten- 
sive farming calls for small-scale production 
(( = without hired labour//?? cf. 49)). 

57 Science must stand above parties — 
Sering, Conrad for the small farm 

59 The peasant prepares socialism 

after his own fashion: co-ope- 
ratives ("wahrend die marxistischen Theore- 
tiker" etc.) (die Wege ... dem Sozialismus)* 
— Producers' co-operatives: "a compromise 
between the principles of association and 
individualism" 

— "not socialist forms as yet" 
— far from it. But even less — "transition 
to capitalism" (K. Kautsky). 
— "mighty burgeonings of the process of 
socialisation" (= co-operatives) 

a proposal for his salvation (Rettungsvorschlage)", a proposal "to spare the 
peasant this downfall (Absturz ersparen)" ...These proposals are in "irrecon- 
cilable contradiction (unheilbarer Widerspruch)" with Engels's views on the 
future of the small peasants. — Ed. 

* In full, David's sentence runs as follows: "While the Marxist theorists 
(Wahrend die marxistischen Theoretiker) were trying to make socialism plau- 
sible and palatable for the peasant in their own manner, the peasant himself 
worked energetically to pave the way for socialism after his own fashion (die 
Wege ... dem Sozialismus)."— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



267 



61 ... Chapter I. "Essential Distinc- 

tion" ... 

66 Concentration ... absolutely lacking.... (1895 

census!!) 

70 ... industry — mechanical process, agri- 

culture — organic process (= essence!) 
Wrong, {ferment, etc.} 

(1) no continuity; 

(2) change of operations; 

(3) territorial change. (Change in place 
of work); 

(4) pace of work determined by nature; 

(5) roomy working premises; 

(6) production of manure — (no analogy!); 

(7) there can be only a slow increase in the 
quantity of produce. 



77 "nutrition (sic!), reproduction, care, pro- 

tection" of vegetable and animal organisms: 
small farm not inferior, but often superior 
empty talk on the "conservatism of nature" 
(!!) 

77 — in connection with this the "law of 

diminishing returns" (!) 
("misunderstood, but basically the right 
idea"). 

Simple co-operation, 

82 "Neighbourly help" to the peasant (ha-ha!). 

It is (not need as such but) the example of the 
neighbours that impels the small peasant 
to tireless effort AW 

84 Marx, "incidentally"??? "absolutely fails 

to see" (nonsense) that capitalism causes 
supervision owing to the labourer's resist- 
ance. (And gives quotations from Marx!) 

86 Hubert Auhagen (N.B.) — "instructive 

study" 

cultivation of fields better on the small 
farm. 



268 



V. I. LENIN 



88 The big farm gets a worse job done and 
pays more for it\ 

89 Against agricultural training ... the peas- 
ant learns from childhood!!! 

90 Of course, there is a lot of backwardness, 
but then most of the big farms are not 
model ones either!! 

(An example of dodging!) 
92 "Critical moments." Marx is not right: 

there's a shortage of labour there. (He got 
it!!) 

92 The peasant has > manpower per ^ 

area, the greatest intensity, etc., > ("advan- 
feverish work J tages") 

94 Simple co-operation does not allow large- 
scale production to attain the same results 
as the peasant community with the same 
labour reserve (Nonsense!!) 

95 A "normal" family (6-4 persons) is mostly 
sufficient ... — ha-ha! Help" ("Ausbitten") 

97-99 Saving of means of production on the big 

farm. Not a single factl 
101 In general the big farm obtains > from the 

land... 

107 Rentengutsbildung* in Prussia ... are to be 

welcomed in principle ... (Sic!!) ... (Sic!!) 

(Sering ... is quite right ...) ... a greater 
quantity of labour for the remaining 
estate owners... 
109 and 110 The small one builds cheaper 
(David's italics) — "Advantage" (A u h a- 
gen) 

— "personal participation rules out high 
cost and jerry-building" 

(very nice, indeed!) 

113 Stumpfe: "the smaller the farm, the 
higher the rent"... 

114 Saving of implements (on big farms) is > 



*See Note 18.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



269 



117 



117-118 



141 

146 
149 

152 



155 



than made up by the "painstaking care" 

("repairs done personally"!!) (lovely!) 

Stumpfe; ("...no rakes for 6 years...") 
A u h age n 

The commercial advantages of the big 
farm? The small farmer sells to consumers 

(Sic!) 

Conclusion: the advantages (of co-operation 
and savings on implements, etc.) are 
t han b alanced out by the disadvantages 

(ha-ha!) 

Simple co-operation does not give the big 
farms any advantage at all.... 

Chapter III. Division of Labour 

Cropping and livestock farming resist radi- 
cal (!!) specialisation. 



That is why David ignores greater, 
not "radical" specialisation in large- 
scale farming 



On the big farms, livestock is neglected 
The opposite on the peasant farm... (Den- 
mark). 

(145 and a welter of reasoning of every kind:) 

the peasant's "personal stake". 
There is nothing more absurd than to imag- 
ine that the peasant is stupid: diverse 
labour, etc. 

On the whole, it is the small farm that 
prospers in gardening. (Very characteris- 



lovely! 



tic! "figures"!!) (Precisely!!) 
[only 6% over 2 ha] 

Agriculture rules out the Nacheinander 
being transformed into "Nebeneinander" 

(wrong!) 



270 



V. I. LENIN 



159 

170 
173 

178 



181 
183 
185 
191 

192-193 

201 

207 

209 
221 



On the big farm there are no differentiated 
tools (wrong) 

Marx on machinery in agriculture (Vol. I)... 
"applies without hesitation".... 
Does not deny the advantages of combining 
agricultural production with industries, 

but this is not of general importance (!!!) 

Thresher. (Cheaper and better. Bensing 
(p. 175).) More often on the big farms. 
(The small ones frequently have nothing 
to thresh!!! Funny character.) 
"Technically" there is nothing to prevent 

the small ones as well (fn) 

Steam plough has not yet supplanted a single 

small farm that's audacious! 

Deep ploughing ... not only with 

the use of the steam plough pathetic dodge! 



The steam plough is not a universal plough 



very novel! 



K. Kautsky's "fantastic notions" about the 
steam plough (where?? charlatan). 
Hand and Machine Labor* — The machine 
is cheaper. 

Electricity is also within reach of the 
small (dodges!) 

There has been no sort of revolution from 
the electric plough (his wit is on the petty 
dullard level) 

A reference to Fischer (that the machine is 
not a threat to the small holder).... 
"On the small-peasant farm, the cow is 
the ideal, i.e., the cheapest and most 
rationally used draught animal" (N.B. 
N.B.) 



*See pp. 282-86.— Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



271 



239 
246 

250-253 



257-258 



262 

265 
267 

271 
281 



some muscular activity out in the fresh 
air is beneficial.... 
...better feeding [Manilovism! 102 ] 
cheap and again: 
A u hag en (without any mention of 
shallower ploughing!) 
Seed drill "quite accessible" 
[Growth of small figures!] (Swindler). 
...Reaping machines ... can be introduced 
Conclusions on machinery. A series of 
swindles. Big farm not meehanicaV. 
Advantage not great (one example from 
Fischer, and nothing about the others!!) 
Does not give any increase in products. 
[A lie: con Bensing] 

What absolutely tends to paralyse 
the effect of the agricultural machine in sup- 
planting hand labour ... intensiveness tends 
to create much more hand labour than 
that supplanted by the agricultural ma- 
chines. 



A funny character: he has failed to 
think through the -|- !! 



only (??) the transition to extensive farming 
brings about a redundancy of agricultural 
labour. 

Decline of rent in Britain = depreciation of 
the nation's land. 

Agricultural machines do not result in 
automatic operations? 



Reaper? 



The agricultural machine is not at all 
to blame for female and child labour (?) 
The "machinomaniacs" notwithstanding, 
there has been no reduction in hard me- 
chanical labour 



Reactionary, Why? Slaves are cheap 



272 



V. I. LENIN 



284-285 



{ 



282 
288 



292 



301 

299 
323 

325 

327 



328 



Child labour: the small-peasant farm offers 
the most favourable condition. 

(Scoundrel) 

physical labour will remain 
such (and not pleasure) 
— "many millions will have 
to take up mechanical 
labour as an occupation" 
Labour protection and child protection 
the expense of the big farm.... 



an opportu- 
nists idea 
of the 
future! 



-at 



"Saving on high wages" — that's 
forgotten!!! Cf. Bulgakov 



Lengthening of the working day by the 
machine v.s.* 



nirgends very bold 



the labourers' movement in East Prussia 

"isolation" of the countryside 

Condition of labourers in East Prussia. 
Not the small farms, but the big ones 
manage to survive only by making use 
of the labourer's need.... 

The agricultural labourer cannot understand 

how the big farm can be more 

paying than the small one. 

Sic! 

Producers^ co-operatives in the 
country? Ideal? 



He has confused them with 
associations in the commodity 
economy. Cf. 328: corn tariffs 
would have been demanded. 



Bun- 
gler! 



Rising to the small peasantryW ("'Heaven 
forbid!' the orthodox Marxist will say.") 



* The words beginning with v.s. are not clear. David says: "Nowhere 
(nirgends) was anything heard about the use of agricultural machines lengthen- 
ing the working day". — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



273 



342-343 
352 

352-355 

357 
360 

362 



415-417 

417 

420 
424 

427 



"Intensive (deep... p. 344) mechanical cul- 
tivation of the soil" (to conserve the 



heat). 



Small farm??? 



Deep ploughing ... not always, must be 
"reasonably applied" 

The bigger the farm, the harder it is to have 
efficient supervision — but the small peas- 
ant — heart and mindV. 



Melioration. 



Small farm??? 



The small holder likewise partici- 



pates in melioration. Downright lie! 



By no means is melioration confined to 
the big farm.... 

figures without % to groupW 
"Whence it is sufficiently clear...." 
Artificial fertilisers. 

The small farmer has > practical 

knowledge ha-ha! 

takes more care 

"nothing in the way..." 

The smaller the farm, the more feasible 
is harmony (in the sense of fertiliser) ' ? 
and the raising of fertility 
Combination of parcel agriculture and indus- 
trial work — "harmonious life"... 
change of occupations, etc. ("Narod- 
niks") 

Abolition of antithesis between town 
and country ... "only" it will take centuries 
(Merci!) 

The small farmer has > live- 
stock per ha — hence manure.... 



0 



Simple 



.."solid holding": 
'gives an interest". 



extolled by David 



274 



V. I. LENIN 



428 
429 



'Idealist or ass!' 



characteristic 



hm! 



"Illusion" about the supplanting of pro- 
prietary farming by leasehold farming. 



439 

440-441 
455 

456 

459 

463 
465 

466 



479 
480 



Chapter VIII 

Introduction of > diverse plants in Europe, 
especially in the 19th century — s mall 
fa r ml 

Selection and cultivation of improved varie- 
ties. Small farm? 

Grain cleaning. "The modern grain cleaner, 
etc." 

Small far ml 
Painstaking work on those 

long winter eveningslU "The small farm 

has a decided advantage." 

Crop rotation is one of the most effective 

ways of combating weeds Small farm? 

... the interested eye.... 

Fighting harmful insects and animals — care 

of plants, etc. 

The big farm cannot obtain the advantages 
which the small holder, cultivating the land 
himself, has by reason of his very status 
in all these operations (killing of insects, 
protection of plants, etc.). (David's italics.) 
It is true that today, because of the ignor- 
ance of their owners, many small farms 
present a still sadder sight than the big 
ones. However, ignorance is in no sense 
the specific, organic flaw of the small farm" 
(David's italics). 
The whole of David is there! 



Livestock breeding. Cf. the weight of 
horned cattle. 

Growth of average weight — on the small 
fa r mil 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



275 



481 

486 
490 

494-495 
504 

509 

511 



512 

(and 518) 



"It is the regions with the small- and 
middle-peasant farms that are at the head 
of livestock breeding organisations" 

(!is that all!) 



The small farms breed the livestock and 



cf. V. V. 



103 



the big ones utilise it 

Supply animals ... with clean straw in 
sufficient quantities. — — — — — — — — 

Small farm? 

Stumpfe: peasants are the best livestock 

Around 1850-80 (p. 503) 
thatched roofs disappeared 
in the southern part of 
Germany, better stables, 
etc., etc., were built. 

Repair work... 
The peasant does not pay, 
he does the repairs him- 
self.... That saves the peas- 
ant many a thaler. 
It is not true that "the 
cottage industry" is "a nor- 
mal supplement" (Marx) 
"not true in any case 



N.B. 
(cf. p. 36) 



well, 
of 
course! 



this is 
interesting! 

Con 
Narodniks! 

The lowest (!) (which then is the "highest" 
???) area limit for the small farm is a plot 
which provides sufficientW work 
and normal sustenance to the members of 
the independent farming peasant family." 



sufficient! that's extremely rare 



Care must be taken not to confuse these 
with the dwarf holdings — which are below 
these limits ... otherwise the question will 
be merely confounded (!!) 
It's a home truth that people who 
have not enough land ... need another 
occupation.... 



276 



V. I. LENIN 



513 



518 



528 



528-529 

529 
531 
532 

533-534 
539 

540 

541-542 



charlatan! 



Reduction of minimum size of area ... under 
the influence of intensification. Hecht 513- 
516, special note 516 

(Optimist) 

The rural handicraftsmen belong to the 
army of industrial workers 
"The independent farming peasant belongs to 
another economic category" (true!! But which 
category, my dear David?) 
Kautsky's "totally groundless 
assertion" that the sugar indus- 
try is a classical example of 
the agricultural big industry . 
and % ... of the total 

"This requires no further comment" — 
precisely! 

"...All the advantages that the big 
farm has because of better or cheaper 
power and tools are more than made up 
by painstaking effort on the small farm" 
(("Gist")) 

Not "dependence" (of the peasant on the 
sugar refinery); but "organisation" — ! 
Figures on industrial enterprises: the fool 
has copied them without understanding them. 
"The vast majority of enterprises processing 
farm produce are connected with small 

farms" 



Downright distortion! 



There is no industrialisation — on the 
contrary (!!), — with Kautsky it's only 
"St. Hegel", "the good old dialectical 
process". 

Co-operation — a transforming force; pro- 
ducers' co-operatives — a new economic 
principle of co-operation. 

The making of milk products is developing 
most vigorously — — 

Denmark ... "sound" division of labour ... 
(54 6 cf. trusts) 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



277 



550-551 In Denmark in 1898 179,740 cow houses 
30 and > cows 7,544 = 4% 
10-29 " 49,371 = 27. 82 % 
< 10 " 122,589 = 68. 97 % incl.1-3 head 
70,218 =39. 85 % c. 

(???) 179,504 100.79 (??) 

hence: 

c. 

7,500 (30 and >) X 30 =225,000 
49,400 (10-29) X 11 = 536,000 
52,400 (4-9) X 5 =250,000 

70,200 (1-3) X 1. 5 = 100,000 



179,500 1,111,000 
Out of 1,111,000 milch cows— about 900,000 
are in co-operative dairies, 
i.e., 33% have about 75%!!! \\ 

555 Jibes over the sale of milk wors- 
ening nutrition — What a bore! 

556 Note: Bang — the peasant eats better 
than the worker. 

560 The small farmer has more staying power 
in face of the crisis: "the small ones can 
more easily stint themselves to the extreme" 

561 Dairy co-operatives — "far from being a 
socialist phenomenon" are however "even 
less" "purely capitalistic". 

569 (Trusts) — with corn, milk, etc. 

David compares them with trade 
unions ("no objections can be pro- 
duced") 

573 France — highly developed co-operatives. 

576 Danish peasant + English worker (direct 

marketing) ((oh, what a bore! 
581 The two sections of the co-operative 

world — peasants and workers — are 

winning ground from the capitalist 

entrepreneurs 

586 British consumer societies have abandoned 

the idea of collectivising peasantry in agri- 
culture 



N.B. 



278 



V. I. LENIN 



588 

592 



598 



601 
604 
611 



614 
615 



617 
619 

620 

621 

626 



against "theoretical optimists"!! (personal 
interests, etc.!) 

Credit co-operatives — death to the usurer 
(con Marxism!!) 
The "creative power" of the co-oper- 
ative idea has led the Marxist 
doctrine on the "necessary ruin" 
of the peasant ad absurdum. 
Full implementation of consumers' co-oper- 
atives will rid the peasant of capitalist 
middlemen. 

(The root of David's mistake lies in N 
the fact that he confounds release from 
middlemen and traders with release 
from capital. 
"A pooling of the interests of the farmers 
and the industrial workers" (David's 
italics). 

— Associations of peasants and consumers' 
societies of workers — a cell of the organisa- 
tion system ((a la trusts, of course)) 
"Law" of diminishing returns — the dis- 
tinction between mechani- 
cal and organic production 
culminates in it!! of tremendous impor- 
tance 

Turgot (cf. "art can do no more") 

(1) only from a definite level of intensive- 
ness does the income (per outlay) decline 

(2) the law says nothing about transition 
from one scientific-technical stage to another. 
(At one stage only). 

J. S. Mill— "basically right".... 

Marx disdains the great truth which lies 

at the root of the soil fertility law.... 

— — His excursus into the history of 

economy is false 

Marx contradicts himself in Capital III, 
2,277— (This David is an ass) 
Rent ... from the land...!!! 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



279 



635 

637 
643 

644 



644 



644 
645 

654 

655 



Division of labour 
in agriculture 



has no part to play 



that's audacious! a specimen of his garbling! 



...there is no arbitrary decupling (of 
labour)... 

In Germany (some big farms) have doubled 
their crops in 100 years (France 10. 2 -15.s 
hectolitres) 

Productivity has not doubled ("definitely 
not") (more outlays, fertilisers, etc.) 
Higher productivity — productivity of la- 
bour, Mr. David? probably > than double! 
What has that got to do with the growth 
of outlays on C??* Marvellous economist! 
there is no doubt at all ... the natural 
expenditure of living human labour 
has increased 



that's bold 



reference: costs of production!!!- 



ha-ha! 



Productivity has increased but on a more 
modest scale than in industry 

1) nature is conservative 

2) limited effect of labour-saving inventions. 
"With the growth of intensiveness, ma- 
chine labour gives way percentage-wise (!) 

to manual labour" (y ?) 

In organic production, machinism and the 
growing mass of products are in antago- 
nism to each other" (!!) 
"the higher the intensiveness, the less 
machine labour there is." 
M. He cht— "typical" (his data) (!) 



* C — constant capital. — Ed. 



280 



V. I. LENIN 



656 Bang in Neue Zeit: greater income with 

smaller size (rise in the category of 
independent farmers). 

659 (Fischer:) the big farmer pays the labourers 
a reward for good work. "The small holder 
saves on this." 

660 In agriculture, there is a tendency towards 
a reduction in hired labour and an increase 
in the farmer's own labour. 

667 The law of diminishing returns leads to an 

extension of the area under crop throughout 
the world (overseas competition) 

670 Growth in the weight of livestock. 

674 The small farmers have more cattle. 

683 The Social-Democrats stand for the all- 

round boosting, etc., of peasant farming. 

687 Marxism is inapplicable (to agricul- 

699 ture). Transformation of big 
farms into small-peasant 
fa rms. 

700 Against agricultural associations' of rural 
labourers (cf. producers' associations!!) 

701 Producers' co-operatives are 
a compromise between the individualist 
and the associative economic prin- 
ciples. 

701 The small peasant's work "contains more 

ideas"... 

701 A fusion of society's supreme property 

right and the individual's usufruct... 

703 A fusion of the small peasants and the rural 

labourers.... 



Written in March-April 1903 

First published in 1932 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



281 



B 

From David: 

p. 109: "The small holder builds at lower cost than the 
big one." He works himself. "This advantage" (sic!) 
also applies to the maintenance of buildings. 

p. 115 (from Auhagen): the small farmer bought no cart 
for 22 years (the big one wears out his in 10-12 
years and sells it to the blacksmith) ... 

p. 152: On the whole, it is the small farm that prospers 
(!) in gardening as in agriculture." 

N.B. cf. statistics 

221: "On the small-peasant farm, the cow is the ideal, 
i.e., the cheapest and most rationally used draught 
animal" (!!) 

pp. 528-529-532. Sleight-of-hand a la Bulgakov, namely, 
that the small farm is more often combined with 
beet sugar and potato production. 

550-551. Denmark ((and the cover)) 

424: The small farm has twice as much cattle per ha 
than the big one. (Cf. Drechsler 104 .) 



Written in March-April 1903 

First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



Printed from the original 



282 



EXTRACTS FROM THE BOOK, 

HAND AND MACHINE LABOR 

Hand and Machine Labor (Thirteenth Annual Report of the 
Commissioner of Labor, 1898, Vols. I and II, Wash., 
1899. 105 ) 

[A very interesting and original work, invaluable on the 
question of hand and machine production. Quantity of 
working time, the number of operations and the number of 
different workers in hand and machine labor, and also labor 
costs are compared by article produced or work accomplished 
("unit" — altogether 672 units). In each unit the same data 
are given separately for each operation. Unfortunately, the 
data are excessively fragmented, and there is no attempt 
to summarise, or to give any general numerical, even if 
only approximate, conclusions. 

cf. p. 93: the general conclusion on agriculture: 
"The aggregates presented by these 27 units necessarily 
vary very much with the crop produced, and the gains made 
by the supplanting of primitive methods by modern ones 
are quite different in different instances. With the exception 
noted in unit 22 there is a gain in each case, and in some 
instances, as in units 3 and 26, it is very large, though of 
course not comparable with those found in the manufactur- 
ing industries. An average deduced from the 27 units here 
reported shows that one man with the improved machinery 
in use to-day can cultivate and harvest nearly twice as large 
a crop as was possible under the primitive method." 

(These 27 units — production of apple trees, wheat, cotton, 
barley, berries, tobacco, potatoes, etc. In Volume One, 
each unit is divided into operations.) 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



283 



In general, the number of operations is much greater in 
machine production (division of labour! e.g., boots and 
shoes: 45-102 operations in hand production, and 84-173 
in machine production), but in agriculture it may sometimes 
(perhaps more often) be vice versa). Reason: the combination 
of several operations in machine production. E.g, unit 
27, wheat, 20 bushels (1 acre). 
Hand method 8 operations 
machine " — 5 



N.B. 



/ motive power \ 
hand: \ ox and hand / 

la — breaking ground 
lb — sowing seed 
Ic — pulverising topsoil and cover- 
ing seed 

machine: 

I — breaking ground, sowing and 
covering seed, and pulverising top- 
soil (gangplow, seeder, and harrow 
— motive power: steam). 



See examples on separate sheet.* 



1597 pp. 
in the two 
volumes 



Information on separate operations is an excellent illustra- 
tion of the division of labour. A pity that no 
effort is made to summarise for some of the "units". 

Another thing that should be done is to sum up the number 
of operations (and % of operations) with motive power other 
than hands. 

There are no summaries on average ages of workers (and 
sex) under hand and machine labour. 

No summaries on wages under hand and machine labour. 

All this can (and should) be calculated by number of 
units and number of operations . Otherwise, there remains 
nothing but examples, illustrations. 



* See pp. 284-88.— Ed. 



284 



V. I. LENIN 



From Hand and 
Some examples from "Summary of 

Description 

Name Quantity 
Hand Machine 



2 


Apple trees 


^ ' V 

Apple trees 32 months from grafts 


10,000 (1 acre) 


14 


Onions 


Onions Onions 


250 (1 acre) 
bush. 


27 


Wheat 


Wheat Wheat 


20 (1 acre) 
(bush.) 
100 pairs 


69 


Boots 


^ ; ' v 

Men's cheap grade, etc. 


91 
176 
212 
241 


Bread 
Wheels 
Trousers 
Cottonades 


^ * v 

1 — pound loaves bread 
Carriage wheels, etc. 
Cottonade trousers, etc. 
apparently a grade of fabric 


1,000 
1 set (4) 
12 dozen pairs 
500 yards 



Text (Vol. I) contains only explanatory notes for each 
unit separately , so that nothing is summarised. 

(A very important thing for a detailed study of the divi- 
sion of labour in separate units, the role of machines 
in separate operations, the importance of workers,' 
skills, and the English names of these skills. But all this 
is rough and raw, a handbook, and no more.) 

It is very important to point out that for an adequately 
exact comparison of the level of technology in the various 
systems of production there must be precisely a break- 
down by operations. That is the only scientific 
method. It would give such a great deal in application to 
agriculture! 

The same Report, as on the previous page — Vols,. VI 
and VII deal with the cost of production. Two great volumes 
give the most detailed figures on each of the hundreds of 
enterprises studied for production costs, materials, wages, 
etc., and then the cost of living with budgets, level of labour 
productivity, etc. Unfortunately all of this is absolutely 
raw stuff, and almost useless without processing (except 
possibly for occasional references). Strangely enough, the 
authors of these works make no attempt at all to summarise 
or draw any general conclusions, however few! 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



285 



Machine Lab or 

production by hand and machine methods": 

Year of Different Different Labor cost 



production 


operations 


workmen 


Time worked 


($) 










perfo 


rmed 


employed 


hand m 


achine 












'M 




a> 


OQ 


W 








-a 


-a 




s 


fa 3 




g 


OJ 


g 
-a 


o 
a 

B 


g 
-a 


u 
u! 

8 


1 
A 


cj 

CO 

a 


noq 




§ 


o 
C3 

0 




1S 69 

18 71 


0 


1/ 


OA 


37 


125 


1,240. 4 


870-24 


193-5 


111. 6 




1850 


1895 


9 


10 


28 


675 


433. 55 


223. 23 


30-8 


22. 3 


14 


18 29 
18 30 


189| 


8 


5 


4 


10 


64.i 5 


2 -58 


3. 7 


0. 7 


27 


1859 


1895 


83 


122 


2 


113 


1,436.40 


154-e 


408.5 


35. 4 


69 


1897 


1897 


11 


16 


1 


12 


28 


8 -56 


5-6 


1-5 


91 


1860 


1895 


13 


30 


2 


27 


37 


4-23 


9-3 


o. v 


176 


1870 


1895 


6 


13 


1 


16 


1,440 


148.3 0 


72 


24. 4 


212 


1893 


1895 


19 


43 


3 


252 


7,534.! 


84. 14 


135. 6 


6. 8 


241 



This is from Vol. I — General table, introduction and 
analysis. 

In Vol. II, there is nothing but tables for each operation 
in each unit. Here is a sampling of the table headings in 
Vol. II: 1) operation number; 2) work done (description 
of each operation); 3) machine, implement or tool used 
(in each operation separately); 4) motive power (hand, 
foot, horse, ox, steam, electricity, etc.); 5) persons neces- 
sary on one machine; 6) employees at work on the unit — 
number and sex (of the workers); — occupation (skill or 
shop); — age (of workers); — time worked; — pay of labour 
(rate per — — ) — labour cost (rate by time worked or by 
pieces in case of piece rates). 

e.g. No. 24 1 . Hand labour: 3 housewives (only female) 
worked at odd hours, 50 years; no machines. 

Machine production: mostly steam frames and machines. 
Working 11 hours a day. Ages from 10 years (sic!) to 50 
years. Both male and female. 

Or No. 27 (wheat). Hand labour: hand, oxen, 4 labourers , 
21-30 years. Plow, sickles, flails, shovels. 



286 



V. I. LENIN 



Machine production: gangplow, seeder, combined reaper 
and thresher. Steam and horse. 1 0 employees (all special- 
ists: engineer, fireman, water hauler, separator man, header 
tender, sack sewers, sack fillers teamsters). 

Let's try to take the results for 27 units (agriculture): 



2 = 27 acres of 
diverse crops 



Years 

1829-1872 
1893-1896 



Number of 
different 
operations 



Number of 
different 
workers 



hand 304 366 
machine 292 1,439 



Time worked 
hrs mins 

9,758 
5,107 



Labour cost 



1,037. 5 
597.« 



Determining the number of different work- N 
ers with the exception of No. 14 (onions), 
hand — 28, machine 675, we get: 

hand— 338 
machine — 764 

subtracting also apple trees (No. 2), 
hand— 37, machine— 125, and No. 19 
(strawberries), hand — 32, machine — 156, 
we get: 

hand— 269 

machine — 583, still more than double! 

Of the 27 units only in one case (No. 22, tobacco) is the 
time worked and labour cost higher for machine labour 
(199 and 353 hours; $5. 9 and 30. 2 ). The author observes: 
"Unit 22 is unique in that the total time at the later date 
was nearly twice that at the earlier, a fact for which no 
other explanation appears than that previously offered" 
(p. 93); page 91: "The methods used at the two periods differ 
so largely that no comparison can be made." 



Written in the autumn of 1904 

First printed in the 
Fourth Russian edition 
of the Collected Works 



Printed from the original 



287 



ANALYSIS OF L. HUSCHKE'S DATA 106 
(ON SMALL-SCALE AGRICULTURE) 

Huschke (on small-scale agriculture) 

Wheat % going on feed* 

and rye 

as feed oats barley 

10 



5. 84 Small farm 67. 0 , g 2 ) 35 -0 

77. 7 ' 20. 5 



Medium farm I 72. , Q n ^ 12. 



t>8. 31 id. 90 

29. 56 Medium farm II 54. 0 i /_ no-, 52. 5g 

75. 91 (p - 93) 46. 52 



3. 55 Big farm 82. 72 (p _ 112) 11. 81 



74. vo ^' ' 24. 08 



(p. 165) 2=574. 72 -5-8=71. 84 % 2 = 216. 62 H-8 = 27. 08 % 



* Top figures in each column are for 1887-1891, lower figures, for 1893- 
1897.— Ed. 



288 



V. I. LENIN 





Hence, data on 


feed: 








(average amount for decade) 








Head 


VV CI C CXI J 


Feed 


Outlays 


ha 




of 


double 


area 


of feed 


under 




cattle 


centners 


ha 


marks 


oats 


Small farm 


11 


47. 5 


5-5 


90 


2 






4-3 


0-50 


8 




Medium farm I 


29 


131 


15. 5 


1,290 


7-6 






4-5 


0-53 


44 




Medium farm II 


25 


203. 5 


12. 0 


404 


6-9 






8-i 


°-48 


16 




Big farm 


67 


184 


42.! 


3,226 


8-9 






2. 7 


0-63 


48 






2 = 132 


565. 5 


75.! 










4 


0-57 







below = average per head of cattle 



For a precise calculation of the area under feed on each 
farm, the quantities of four cereals (wheat, rye, barley and oats) 
fed to the livestock should be given in terms of hectares, 

(1) the grain sown should be subtracted from the total crop; 

(2) the net crop obtained should be divided by the number 
of hectares under each cereal; (3) the number of double 
centners fed to the livestock should be divided by the quo- 
tient thus obtained. 

This is too cumbersome a calculation for the four cereals, 
the four farms, and the two five-year periods. 

On the other hand, the error could not be too great 
if we take all the oats as being feed, for the oats not 
going into feed are balanced out by the barley going into 
feed. 



* This sentence was subsequently pencilled in over the table heading; 
it refers to the lower figures in columns 2, 3 and 4. — Ed. 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



289 



Hence, let us assume that the whole area under oats is 
area under feed: (i.e., oats + mixture + all the fodder 
grasses + wheat). 



Total area 
under feed 



Small farm 
Medium farm I 



Medium farm II 



Big farm 



7-5 
0-68 

23.! 

0.79 
18. 9 

0-76 
51. 0 
0-76 

= 100.50 
0-75 



These data show such (rel- 
atively) stable averages that 
they can apparently be re- 
lied upon: O.75 ha per head 
of cattle. But for a compa- 
rison with the statistical data 
for the whole of Germany, it 
should be taken into account 
that Huschke's calculation of 
cattle is different from 
mine. 

The difference is not due to any difference in rates, but to 
Huschke' s very detailed classification of cattle. He makes 
a distinction between foals, young cattle, calves, suckling- 
pigs (p. 53, Note 1), whereas I am unable to take account 
of these minute distinctions from the data of the general 
agricultural census of June 12, 1907. 

This means that for a comparison, 
should be converted into the terms 
1907 data, i.e., all horses, and 
1.0; all pigs = l U; all sheep = Vio. 



N.B. 



Huschke's data 
of the June 12, 
a 1 1 cattle = 



We then have: 



ha under 
feed 

Small farm . . . 13. 45 > head of > 7.5 
average for Medium farm I . 31. §5 \ cattle \ 23. 1 
10 (8) years Medium farm II . 36. 81 " ' 18. 9 

Big farm .... 88. 8 " 51. 0 

170. 91 lOO.so 

0-58 



290 



V. I. LENIN 



and for the whole of Germany (1907)— 13,648,628 ha of feed 
(meadows + fodder plants + oats + mixed cereals) for 
29,380,405 head of cattle, i.e., 0. 46 per head. 

This looks very much like being true, because Huschke's 
farmers are (very) good. 

From II Huschke's II data follow these conclusions 



Y 1) the big farm spends much more on artificial fertiliser 
(p. 144) 

has a much deeper ploughing (p. 15 2, 
Note 2) 

is better equipped with dead stock 
ensures the greatest crop increase in time 
feeds livestock better 
spends more on insurance (p. 139) 
obtains a better price for its products 
(p. 14 6) (p. 155). 



2) 

3) 
4) 
5) 
6) 
7) 



1887-91 1893-97 (p. 139) 



r ^ -.To 1) p er ha. Small farm 17. 18 16. 91 — 
\p.l44J Medium farm 40.48 32. 



Big farm 



60- 

22. 80 2O.74- 

41.34 4 8.95 + 



\ s 


\ m >i 




! marks * 




j per ha | 




I seed, | 




! feed, | 




1 ferti- x 


/ < 


I User 1 



To 3) A list of stock, p. 10 7 et al., p. 47. 

Outlays on maintenance of dead stock, buildings 
and drainage in marks per ha. 





1887-91 


1893-97 




Small farm 


14.10 


7.43 


—6.67 


Medium farm 


13-38 


15-95 


+ 2.57 




10-70 


9-91 


-0.79 


Big farm 


9.64 


11.95 


+ 2-31 



SO.' 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



291 



To 4) Yields of four cereals (rye, wheat, oats and barley) 
in double centners per ha. 

1887-91 1893-97 

NB: \ (p. 51) small farm 
the land on (p. 73) medium farm 
the big farm - (p. 92) 

is worse (p. Ill) big farm 

(p. 125) ) 



20. 46 


20. 66 


+ 0. 20 


17-90 


17-13 


-0.77 


19-09 


21-06 


+ 1-97 


17-46 


19-77 


+ 2-31 



Livestock feed (double centners) 



Head in 
terms of Price of 



cattle wheat rye barley oats 2 
cattle 1) 

,10. 75 2,765 (p. 47) 188 7-91 2. 19 1. 68 14. 24 30. 74 48. 85 

11. 3 3,019 Small farm 1893-97 1. 44 0. 40 8. 81 35. 56 46. 21 

— — — + — 

,26. 8 9,474 (p. 74) 12. 78 1. 34 21. 16 77. 04 112. 32 

30. 6 11,091 Medium farm I 14. 26 6. 38 29. 75 9 9. 87 150. 26 

+ + + + + 

,23. 5 10,574 (p. 87) 12. 71 2. 39 59. 24 94. 33 168. 97 

25. 9 10,971 Medium farm II 25. 71 33. 74 57. 38 122. 09 238. 92 

+ + - + + 

_67. 1 23,442 (p. 112) 18. 61 0. 63 15. 90 128. 83 163. 97 

66. 6 23,300 Big farm 15. 40 1. 15 41. 25 146. 60 204. 40 

- + + + + 



*) Huschke gives 9. 4 and 10 (p. 53), but this does 
not follow from the rates he himself gives (p. 53). 



292 



V. I. LENIN 



? 

= Perennial 
fodder plants? 



Use of Land (ha) 



0 

,3 a 



a a 



MS 
0) 05 



Small 

farm 6. 6 1 0. 4 1 

Medium 
farm I 33. 5 4 5 2 



2.S + 



12(D 
+ 1. 5 (2) 



bo 



o 



- 13. 00 0. 5 



3 61 
Fallow 



99 



Medium 

farm II 20. 5 2. 5 4 2. 5 9 2. 5 43. 5 0. 

(Rape) 2. 5 

Big farm 45. q 6.q 8.q 6.q Rape 2.q f" mix- "] 3. 0 101 5. 08 



+ 
2. 0 



6.q Rape 2.q r mix- T 3 
J ture, I 
| maize, | 
4. n Beet- + I etc. J 




root 25 (?3) 



Perennial fodder plants .... 

2 ) Mixture for fattening .... 

3 ) Others, (p. 110)? 101—76 = 25 



CRITIQUE OF BOURGEOIS LITERATURE 



293 



Value of Livestock 



a) 1st five-year 
period 

(3) 1st five-year 
period 



I (Small farm) 
(p. 47) 



(p. 69) 



(p. 87) 



IV (Big farm) 
(p. 107) 



Head in terms 
of big cattle 

a) 53. 85 -5 = 10. 75 
pj Jo-60 • o 11 -32 


marks 
2,765. 00 

3 019 nn 

o,ui£i.oo 


110.45-5-10=11.04 

a) 135. 2-7-5 = 26. 8 
p) ioo-2~o — ou.6 


5,784 
-7-2 = 2,892. 0 
9,474. 0 
11 , u u 1 . 0 


287. 4-r-10 = 28.74 

a) 70. 6 -f-3 = 23. 5 
P) 129.7-7-5 = 25.9 


20,565 
-=-2 = 10,282.50 
10,574.66 

10 971 nn 


200.3-7-8 = 25.04 

a) 335.5-7-5 = 67.! 
P) 333.25-7-5 = 66.6 


21,545.66 

. 0 4 A r 7 l 70 

-7-2 — 10,772.83 
23,442.o 
23,300.o 


668.75-7-10 = 66.3 


46,742 
-=-2 = 23,371.00 



P. 123: 



I 

II- 
III- 
IV- 



13. a, ha 11 



•64 

10 



61. 
45. 

108: 



06 
41 



29 
25 
67 



} 



head of 

big 
cattle 



Written not earlier than 
September 1910- 
not later than 1913 

First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



Price 

of 
aver- 
age head 
of big 
cattle 



261. 



357.5 



430. f 



349.5 



52.3X10 = 
523-7-2 = 261.5 



5,784-7-110.45= 
52.3X5 = 261.5 



20,565-7-287.4= 
71.5X5 = 357.5 



21,545.66-7-200.3 
107.5X5 = 537.1 
107.5X8 = 
860-7-2 = 430 



46,7 4 2-7-6 6 8.75= 
69.9X5 = 349.5 
This is wrong. 
2,892 should be 
divided by 11. 04, 
etc. But the 
ratios do not 
change. 



Printed from the original 



Ill 



MATERIAL FOR A STUDY 
OF THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 
OF EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES 

1910-1916 



297 



GERMAN AGRARIAN STATISTICS (1907) 107 
44 pages. 40 vertical X 33 (horizontal) squares* 



Vol. 212. Census of Occupations and Enterprises of 
June 12, 1907. 

Agricultural Production Statistics . 



First three subvolumes: 1 a; 1 b; 2 a 



From the "preliminary remarks" to tables 4 and 5 ("Part 
1 6"). These figures were first collected in 1907. "The ground 
for classifying under these 11 heads according to number of 
personnel was the data under letter C 1-3 of the master 
card; consequently, account was also taken of family mem- 
bers helping out (C 2 b) and casual labour (C 3 c)" (p. 455). 
"...The number of farms classified under heads 14-64" 
(establishments by number of labourers: 1, 2, etc., to 200) 
"is as a rule smaller than the total number of farms in the 
first column" (the number of a 1 1 agricultural enterprises), 
"because it contains, in addition, figures for farms only 
with the greatest number of labourers and farms without 
personnel" (455). 



Size or square-lined sheet used in MS. — Ed. 



Statistik des 
Deutschert 
Reichs. 



German statistical publications: 
Puttkammer und Miihlbrecht. 
Franzosiche Strasse, 28. Berlin. 
(Free catalogue.) 



298 



V. I. LENIN 



On the whole, the main substance of the three 
volumes (la, lb and 2 a) is set down in this notebook. 



secondary items left out: forest estates, columns of 
particular and detailed data, poultry in the cattle 
population column, etc., etc. 



To show that it is not right to classify labour in agricul- 
ture by sex and age, I give the data (Statistisches Jahrbuch, 
1910) for the whole of industry according to the Census 
of June 12, 1907. Total personnel = 1 4,348,0 1 6, 
including women — 3,51 0,464 (= 24. 4 %). Apparently, 
only the help and labourers have been classified by age. 
Their total: 7,474,140 men + 1,862,531 women, together = 
9,336,671; including those of 16 years and over — 
6,923,586 men + 1,663,070 women; 14-16—527,182 men + 
190,454 women, together— 717,636; under 14: 23,372 

men + 9^007 women [together = 32,379 = 0. 3 %1>uTof 

9,336, 67ir~~ 

14-16 years . . . 717,636 
under 14 years . . 32,379 

750,015 =8. 0 °/o 

Then family members helping out (141,295 men & 
790,602 women) are classified as follows: 16 years and 
over — 126,738 men + 767,127 women; under 16 years: 
14,557 men + 23,475 women. 



{ 



Statistik des Deutschen Reichs. Band 2 0 2. fThe exact! 
Berufs- und Betriebszahlung vom 12. Juni 1907. i title of Y 
Berufsstatistik* (according to the June 12, 1907 I Vol. 202: J 
Census), 



Vol. 202 (1909). (Price 6 Mk) 



Section I 
Introduction 



211 (in preparation) Summaries. 



* Statistics of the German Reich. Vol. 202. Census of Occupations 
and Enterprises of June 12, 1907. Occupations Statistics. 



Pages 8 and 9 of Lenin's manuscript, 
"German Agrarian Statistics (1907)". 
September 1910-1913 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



299 



1895 statistics: Statistics of the German Reich, new series, 
Vol. 112 (Berlin 1898): "Agriculture in the German Reich 
according to the Agricultural Census of June 14, 1895". 



Part 2 a. Table 10. Wine-growing Farms 
(by size of area under vineyards) 







These farms have 














Owners 
not farm- 
ers by 
principal 
occu- 
pation 




Number 
of wine- 
growing 
farms 


total 
area 
ha 


area 
under 
vineyards 
h a 


other 
farmland 




Under 
2 ares 


2,239 


4,287 


23 


3,726 


1,228 




2-5 


25,240 


61,016 


836 


52,440 


11,665 




5-10 


56,183 


149,617 


3,922 


135,135 


23,127 




. 10-20 


79,031 


270,713 


10,998 


235,714 


25,900 


20-50 


99,805 


409,727 


30,806 


334,396 


23,054 


50-1 ha 


44,373 


227,764 


29,328 


171,583 


7,156 




' 1-2 


16,167 


124,645 


20,973 


85,140 


2,578 




2-3 


2,747 


35,262 


6,315 


19,777 


541 


- 


3-4 


868 


25,104 


2,927 


10,620 


189 




4-5 


437 


10,433 


7,119 


13,581 


201 




. 5 and over 


768 


44,098 


7,119 


13,581 


201 


Total 


327,858 


1,362,666 


115,107 


1,067,330 


95,753 



300 



V. I. LENIN 



1) top = Total 

2) = main enter- 

prises 

3) bottom = ancillary en- 

terprises 

Part 1 a. Table 1 



Under 
0. 5 ha 


Agricultural enter- 
prises in general 


Of the total area 


The farms 


enter- 
prises 


area 
ha 


land 
owned 


land 
leased 


other 
land 


land 
only 
under 
vege- 
table 
gardens 


land 
only 
under 
pota- 




2,084,060 
89,166 
1,994,894 


619,066 
142,995 
476,071 


369,752 


157,132 


92,182 


623,711 


360,944 




0. 5 -2 ha 


1,294,449 
369,224 
925,225 


1,872,936 
725,021 
1,147,915 


1,333,022 


426,380 


113,534 


13,263 


21,831 




2-5 


1,006,277 
718,905 
287,372 


4,306,421 
3,153,829 
1,152,592 


3,501,620 


713,415 


91,386 


1,200 


249 




5-20 


1,065,539 
980,970 
84,569 


13,768,521 
12,702,834 
1,065,687 


12,401,022 


1,239,747 


127,752 


289 


74 




20-100 


262,1914 
254,664 
7,530 


12,623,011 
12,702,834 
525,768 


11,622,873 


946,723 


53,415 


27 


2 




100 
and - 


23,566 
23,110 
456 


9,916,531 
9,696,179 
220,352 


7,873,850 


2,028,962 


13,719 


3 






incl. 
200 ha 
and > 


12,887 
12,737 
150 


7,674,873 
7,555,522 
119,351 


6,063,052 


1,607,373 


4,448 








2 


5,736,082 
2,436,036 
3,300,046 


43,106,486 
38,518,101 
4,588,385 


37,102,139 


5,512,359 


491,988 


638,495 


383,100 






















5-10 ha 


652,798 
589,266 
63,532 


5,997,626 
5,376,631 
620,995 


5,266,586 


671,655 


59,385 


233 


54 




10-20 ha 


412,741 
391,704 
21,037 


7,770,895 
7,326,203 
444,692 


7,134,436 


568,092 


68,367 


56 


20 





1 have left out many 
details in this table 
on owned and leased 
land. 



* The column below has been transferred here from p. 127 of the MS. 
total number of enterprises, the second, the main enterprises, and the bottom, the 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



301 



1) total 

2) main enterprises 

3) ancillary enterprises* 



Table 2 



have 


Of the total area 


Of the total area 
farmland in general 




land 
under 
forest 
estates 


waste and 
unsuit- 
able 
land 


ploughland 


land under 
vegetable 

gardens and 
orchards 
without 

nocni , prn70 
LlcLOI dLlve 

gardens 


vine- 
yards 
ha 




38,762 


22,788 


246,961 


76,431 


6,256 


359,553 
24,400 
335,153 




118,994 


61,782 


976,345 


71,296 


29,046 


1,371,758 
462,317 
909,441 




237,117 


117,939 


2,350,006 


73,454 


39,346 


3,304,878 
2,446,400 
858,478 




445,922 


218,712 


7,728,039 


138,511 


34,185 


10,421,564 
9,710,848 
710,716 




141,258 


80, 009 


7,728,039 


79,810 


5,878 


9,322,103 
9,064,769 
257,334 




13,630 


8,775 


7,220,699 


42,214 


657 


7,055,018 
6,953,946 
101,072 




8,411 


5,231 


4,683,308 


31,867 


236 


5,555,793 
5,495,247 
60,546 




995,683 


510,005 


24,432,354 


481,716 


115,368 


31,834,874 
28,662,680 
3,172,194 














under 2 ha 1,731,311 
2-20 13,726,442 
over 20 ha 16,377,121 




240,369 


117,892 


3,379,657 


69,450 


23,379 


4,607,090 
4,182,257 
424,833 




205,553 


100, 820 


4,348,382 


69,061 


10,806 


5,814,474 
5,528,591 
285,883 



(p. 331 of this volume), as Lenin wanted it. The top figure of three shows the 
ancillary enterprises. — Ed. 



302 



V. I. LENIN 



1) top =male 

2) lower = female 

3) bottom = together 



Number working 
on June 12, 1907 



In this table, and from 
here on, all the totals 
(male + female) are mine 



Part 1 b. Table 4: Personnel on agricul 



Maximum working 
from June 13, 1906 
to June 12, 1907 



Of the . . . persons 



total 



of them 
perma- 
nent 
labour 



total 



of them 
casual 
labour 



enter- 
prises 



personnel 



12. 6. 

1907 



maximum 



522,343 
1,491,964 
2,014,307 



325,043 
528,973 
854,016 



964,858 
1,648,732 
2,613,590 



516,509 
231,555 
748,064 



1,060,700 



147,753 
912,947 



381,957 
991,575 



801,850 
1,536,895 
2,338,745 



492,153 
802,695 
1,294,848 



1,240,243 
1,812,754 
3,052,997 



563,252 
397,971 
961,223 



492,565 



60,418 
432,147 



242,890 
524,494 



1,330,625 
1,583,252 
2,913,877 



1,012,783 
1,066,337 
2,079,120 



1,709,508 
1,941,006 
3,650,514 



519,004 
498,023 
1,017,027 



93,154 



23,101 
70,053 



69,240 
109,349 



2,324,888 
2,270,970 
4,595,858 



1,882,107 
1,618,741 
3,500,848 



3,045,451 
3,024,803 
6,070,254 



992,858 
1,047,081 
2,039,939 



14,227 



8,391 
5,836 



23,602 
20,285 



1,139,898 
929,535 
2,069,433 



919,070 
634,009 
1,553,079 



1,565,150 
1,310,234 
2,875,384 



613,760 
593,277 
1,207,037 



755 



589 
166 



2,353 
1,382 



728,224 
509,105 
1,237,329 



542,097 
291,815 
833,912 



844,301 
625,384 
1,469,685 



301,164 
330,517 
631,681 



62 



62 



694 
611 



560,063 
380,727 
940,790 



416,934 
218,221 
635,155 



636,171 
458,853 
1,095,024 



218,795 
239,469 
458,264 



30 



30 



453 
494 



6,847,828 
8,321,721 
15,139,549 



5,173,253 
4,942,570 
10,115,823 



9,369,511 
10362,913 
19,732,424 



3,506,547 
3,098,424 
6,604,971 



1,661,463 



240,314 
1,421,149 
1,661,463 



720,736 
1,647,696 
2,368,432 



1,239,883 
1,251,454 
2,491,337 



1,001,675 
892,956 
1,894,631 



1,593,788 
1,616,384 
3,210,172 



483,185 
502,028 
985,213 



11,822 



6,563 
5,259 
11,822 



17,668 
15,890 



1,085,005 
1,019,516 
2,104,521 



880,432 
725,785 
1,606,217 



1,451,663 
1,408,419 
2,860,082 



509,673 
545,053 
1,054,726 



2,405 



1,828 
557 



5,934 
4,395 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



303 



tural enterprises by number and sex 



employed in agricultural enterprises, including managers: 





2 


3 


4-5 


enter- 
prises 


personnel 


enter- 
prises 


personnel 


enter- 
prises 


personnel 


12. 6. 

1907 


maxi- 
mum 


12. 6. 

1907 


maxi- 
mum 


12. 6. 

1907 


maxi- 
mum 




324,880 


250,567 
399,193 


318,171 
434,458 


66,372 


79,406 
119,710 


95,129 
130,939 


19,644 


34,269 
48,554 
82,823 


39,695 
53,319 
93,014 




426,043 


319,863 
532,223 


446,119 
618,457 


182,016 


224,209 
3321,839 


277,889 
367,778 


81,584 


151,820 
194,193 
346,013 


176,531 
220,032 
396,563 




330,535 


296,159 
364,911 


414,281 
474,573 


312,821 


431,143 
507,320 


539,652 
611,119 


222,679 


449,854 
498,361 
948,215 


529,782 
577,755 
1,107,537 




121,400 


126 194 
116,606 


212 595 
208^956 


252,719 


385 231 
372,926 


542 336 
537'519 


475,524 


1,058,301 
1,032^429 


1,361,568 
L344',729 




2,354 


2 943 
1,765 


7 977 
6,302 


8,605 


15 911 
9,904 


33 406 
24',169 


57,167 


150,793 
111,409 
262,202 


247 806 
193'646 
441,452 




32 


55 
9 


392 
375 


49 


95 
52 


522 
462 


158 


500 
233 
733 


1,378 
999 
2,377 




15 


24 
6 


237 
252 


14 


32 
10 


181 
209 


27 


88 
36 


362 
331 




1,205,244 


995,781 
1,414,707 
2,410,488 


1,399,535 
1,743,121 
3,142,656 


822,582 


1,135,995 
1,331,751 
2,467,746 


1,488,934 
1,671,986 
3,160,920 


856,756 


1,845,537 
1,885,179 
3,730,716 


2,356,760 
2,390,480 
4,747,240 
























102,110 


104,613 
99,607 
204,220 


166,855 
165,933 


194,618 


290,540 
293,314 
583,854 


389,482 
397,234 


274,771 


590,891 
599,881 
1,190,772 


728,042 
738,760 
1,466,802 




19,290 


21,581 
16,999 


45,740 
42,023 


58,101 


94,691 
79,612 


152,854 
140,285 


200,753 


467,410 
432,548 
899,958 


633,526 
605,969 
1,239,495 



[ctd on next page] 



304 



V. I. LENIN 



Of the . . . persons employed in agricul 



6-10 



personnel 



X B 

a 0 



11-20 



personnel 



X B 
CS =1 

0 0 



21-30 



personnel 



2,239 



6,007 
9,095 
15,102 



7,203 
10,338 
17,541 



183 



1,325 
1,212 



1,793 
1,487 



33 



483 
356 



11,710 



33,370 
45,959 
79,329 



38,251 
51,753 
90,004 



972 



6,147 
7,096 



7,263 
8,093 



144 



2,115 
1,372 



32,692 



102,339 
116,750 
219,089 



115,989 
132,611 
248,600 



2,450 



15,942 
17,842 



18,246 
20,252 



344 



4,692 
3,530 



185,008 



629,332 
629,739 
1,259,071 



766,674 
778,448 
1,545,122 



11,760 



76,534 
80,289 



87,732 
93,320 



1,363 



16,593 
16,632 



150,553 



609,305 
494,583 
1,103,888 



827,983 
690,869 
1,518,852 



36,727 



259,354 
229,139 



322,736 
289,113 



4,026 



50,242 
47,615 



992 



5,551 
2,610 
8,161 



10,345 
6,736 
17,081 



3,569 



35,656 
20,330 



49,619 
33,356 



3,966 



61,029 
39,705 



118 



608 
337 
945 



2,001 
1,662 
3,663 



377 



4,379 
1,753 



6,923 
3,933 



1,058 



18,704 
8,823 



383,194 



1,385,904 
1,298,736 
2,684,640 



1,766,445 
1,670,755 
3,437,200 



55,661 



394,958 
355,908 
750,866 



487,389 
445,621 
933,010 



9,876 



135,154 
109,210 
244,364 



62,941 



206,045 
214,834 
420,879 



242,528 
252,678 
495,206 



3,741 



24,802 
26,293 
51,095 



27,973 
29,895 



511 



6,356 
6,152 
12,508 



122,067 



423,287 
414,905 
838,192 



524,146 
525,770 
1,049,916 



,019 



51,732 
53,996 



59,759 
63,425 



852 



10,237 
10,480 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



305 



tural enterprises, including managers: 





31-50 


51-100 


101-200 


over 200 


03 
m 

'u 

& 

03 

d 

os 


personnel 


03 
CO 

'u 
& 

03 

a 

03 


personnel 


03 
«3 

& 
Sh 
03 

a 

03 


personnel 


03 
03 

& 

Sh 
03 

a 

03 


personnel 


. o 


a a 


. o 

(Nl CT2 
tH 


'£ 6 

a a 


. o 


a a 


. o 

(Nl 03 
tH 


■r a 
a a 




21 


590 
202 


976 
579 


16 


852 
229 


1,322 
371 


11 


912 
436 


962 
556 


1 


179 
30 


179 
30 




60 


1,484 
811 


1,810 
1,042 


25 


1,099 
581 


1,300 
667 


10 


862 
446 


1,109 
569 


3 


463 
228 


516 
175 




111 


2,758 
1,381 


3,229 
1,790 


50 


2,303 
1,271 


2,543 
1,482 


18 


1,548 
829 


1,760 
930 


4 


786 
1,004 


980 
94,582 




482 


10,027 
8,180 


11,701 
9,886 


174 


7,244 
4,289 


8,867 
5,294 


47 


3,942 
2,479 


4,684 
3,097 


15 


3,099 
1,565 


3,273 
1,650 




1,167 


23,278 
19,968 


28,875 
25,538 


320 


13,236 
7,763 


16,475 
11,525 


95 


8,687 
4,440 


10,719 
6,240 


27 


5,560 
2,783 


5,936 
2,946 




5,956 


141,141 
95,068 


164,612 
118,881 


6,230 


255,654 
177,056 


289,423 
212,650 


2,115 


160,220 
119,793 


176,208 
136,154 


406 


68,261 
54,249 


74,315 
60,858 




3,379 


87,952 
48,939 


103,628 
64,070 


5,431 


229,374 
152,908 


258,941 
183,845 


2,043 


154,674 
116,005 


169,638 
131,735 


388 


64,198 
51,910 


69,826 
58,191 




7,797 


179,278 
125,610 
304,888 


211,203 
157,716 
368,919 


6,815 


280,388 
191,189 
471,577 


319,930 
231,989 
551,919 


2,296 


176,171 
128,423 
304,594 


195,442 
147,547 
342,989 


456 


78,348 
59,859 
138,207 


85,199 
66,604 
151,803*) 






























164 


3,441 
2,760 
6,201 


4,087 
3,366 


76 


3,282 
1,722 
5,004 


3,772 
2,102 


16 


1,460 
728 
2,188 


1,740 
930 


9 


1,890 
904 
2,794 


2,041 
999 




318 


6,586 
5,420 


7,614 
6,520 


98 


3,962 
2,567 


5,095 
3,192 


31 


2,482 
1,751 


2,944 
2,167 


6 


1,209 
661 


1,232 
651 



*) 2 maximum (>6 labourers) = 6,088,551. 2 (maximum) = 
19,507,799. 



306 



V. I. LENIN 



vertical = male 
order = female 
= total 

Ibid. Table 5. Personnel in agricultural enterprises 





Managers 


Family 


total 


of them 


P working 
permanently 




owners 


lease- 
holders 


others 
(man- 
agers, 
supervi- 
sors, etc.) 


m./f. 


of them 
under 14 
years 


Under 
0. 5 ha 


279,464 
135,017 
414,481 


135,084 
92,817 
227,901 


98,928 
33,816 
132,744 


45,452 
8,384 
53,836 


31,353 
369,641 
400,994 


2,364 
2,841 
5,205 




u.g-z na 


363,273 
123,044 
486,317 


304,138 
110,100 
414,238 


45,309 
10,901 
56,210 


13,826 
2,043 
15,869 


98,286 
643,391 
741,677 


7,904 
8,311 
16,215 




z-o na 


681,216 
73,917 
755,133 


635,969 
70,880 
706,849 


38,392 
2,611 
41,003 


6,855 
426 
7,281 


272,863 
920,203 
1,193,066 


16,468 
16,647 
33,115 




o-ZU na 


936,185 
57,062 
993,247 


906,121 
55,692 
961,813 


25,478 
1,028 
26,506 


4,586 
342 
4,928 


626,299 
1,247,274 
1,873,573 


26,790 
25,239 
52,029 




on inn "Uo 
zu-iuu na 


242,975 
lo,uoo 
256,560 


228,370 
12,974 
241,344 


11,360 
451 
11,811 


3,245 
160 
3,405 


185,277 
275,514 
460,791 


5,258 
4,749 
10,007 




100 ha and 
over 


22,980 

{ i 0 

23,755 


12,978 
552 
13,530 


5,107 
167 
5,274 


4,895 
56 
4,951 


4,191 
6,193 
10,384 


104 
139 
243 




incl. 
200 ha and 
over 


12,702 
13,138 


6,287 
301 
6,588 


2,957 
108 
3,065 


3,458 
27 
3,485 


1,548 
2,138 
3,686 


76 
107 
183 




Total 


2,526,093 
403,400 
2,929,493 


2,222,660 
343,015 
2,565,675 


224,574 
48,974 
273,548 


78,859 
11,411 
90,270 


1,218,269 
3,462,216 
4,680,485 


58,888 
57,926 
116,814 






220,716(t 


)tal farms 25 


5,697)415,2 


95 








5-10 ha 


562,393 
35,692 
598,085 


544,423 
34,868 
579,291 


15,448 
618 
16,066 


2,522 
206 
2,728 


333,626 
741,594 
1,075,220 


15,548 
14,927 
30,475 




10-20 ha 


373,792 
21,370 
395,162 


361,698 
20,824 
382,522 


10,030 
410 
10,440 


2,064 
136 
2,200 


292,673 
505,680 
798,353 


11,242 
10,312 
21,554 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



307 



by status in production and by sex. 



members 


Outside labour 




v working 
temporarily only 


control- 
lers, 
book- 
keepers, 
etc. (a) 
m./f. 
& 


permanent labour 


those 
in (a). 
(P) a~nd 

"(V) 

under 
14 

years 


casual labour 


m./f. 


of them 
under 

14 
years 


male and 
female 
farm- 
hands 

(P) 


bourers, 
labour- 
ers and 

Instleute 

(Y) 


m./f. 


of them 
under 
14 

years 




123,306 
888,204 
1,011,510 


19,191 
17,871 
37,062 


1,006 
469 
1,472 


4,297 
19,617 
23,914 


8,926 
4,229 
13,155 


177 
259 
436 


73,994 
74,787 
148,781 


681 
620 
1,301 




184,838 
612,088 
796,926 


38,533 
34,070 
72,603 


1,646 
486 
2,132 


12,094 
27,245 
39,339 


16,854 
8,529 
25,383 


717 
647 
1,364 


124,859 
122,112 
246,971 


1,564 
1,192 
2,756 




177,721 
376,646 
554,367 


49,761 
42,233 
91,994 


2,131 
555 
2,686 


32,958 
59,365 
92,323 


23,615 
12,297 
35,912 


3,028 
2,251 
5,270 


140,121 
140,269 
280,390 


2,766 
1,947 
4,713 




170,486 
358,981 
529,467 


66,132 
56,446 
122,578 


4,965 
1,614 
6,579 


254,249 
281,870 
536,119 


60,409 
30,921 
91,330 


16,750 
7,002 
23,752 


272,295 
293,248 
656,543 


9,984 
5,498 
15,482 




32,320 
82,948 
115,268 


12,431 
10,508 
22,939 


10,146 

Q £77 
6,0 i I 

13,723 


359,451 
278,809 
638,260 


121,221 
62,524 
138,745 


13,702 

4,141 

17,843 


188,508 
212,578 
401,086 


12,038 
8,230 
20,268 




1,040 
3,052 
4,092 


117 
105 
222 


44,341 
o,zzy 
50,570 


147,731 
68,365 
215,996 


322,854 
210,353 
533,207 


4,301 
7,990 


185,087 
214,238 
399,325 


18,118 
18,123 
36,241 




442 
1,163 
1,605 


20 
33 
53 


35,494 
4 222 
39,716 


106,702 
48,452 
155,154 


260,488 
162,973 
423,461 


3,223 
2 929 
6',152 


142,687 
161,343 
304,030 


12,907 
13,181 
26,088 




689,711 
2,321,919 
3,011,630 


186,165 
161,233 
347,398 


64,232 
12,930 
77,162 


810,780 
735,171 
1,545,951 


553,879 
328,853 
882,732 


38,675 
17,989 
56,664 


984,864 
1,057,232 
2,042,096 


45,151 
35,610 
80,761 




101,259 




6,754 


497,655 


91,394 




288,171 






108,928 
221,400 
330,328 


39,776 
34,115 
73,891 


2,264 
641 
2,905 


77,028 
101,642 
178,670 


26,364 
13,387 
39,751 


6,171 
3,187 
9,358 


129,280 
137,098 
266,378 


3,769 
2,266 
6,035 




61,558 
137,581 
199,139 


26,356 
22,331 
48,687 


2,701 
973 
3,674 


177,221 
180,228 
357,449 


34,045 
17,534 
51,579 


10,579 
3,815 
14,394 


143,015 
156,150 
299,165 


6,215 
3,232 
9,447 



[ctd on next page] 



308 



V. I. LENIN 



' ' Only in this column 
are totals (m. + f.) 
from the original. 
In other columns, the 




Ergo, there are more 
hired than family 

workers in the 20-50 
ha group as well 






tutais a.L e mint; 


(My calculation) 
Total labour 


total number of persons 


(a+p+y) 

■fa m 1 1 V 

± cl 111 11 v 


(8+s+^+y]) 

\\\ 1 T*PfI 

1111 cu 


Under 
0. 5 ha 


522,343 
1,491,964 
2,014,307 


1,392,862 

1 89fi QS^i 


99,102 
187 399 

-LO t ,OZjZj 




O.5-2 ha 


801,850 
1,536,895 
2,338,745 


1,378,523 

9 094 Q9D 


158,372 




2-5 ha 


1,330,625 
1,583,252 
2,913,877 


1,370,766 

9 ^09 ^ififi 


212,486 

411 Q11 
^11,011 




5-20 ha 


2,324,888 
2,270,970 
4,595,858 


3 3Qfi 987 


1 1QQ ^7 

-L, i-OO^O t 




20-100 ha 


1,139,898 
929,535 
2,069,433 


372,047 
832,619 


1,557,488 
1,236,814 




100 ha and 
over 


728,224 
509,105 
1,237,329 


10,020 
38,231 


499,085 
1,199,098 




incl. 200 ha 
and over 


560,063 
380,727 
940,790 


18,429 


922,361 




Total 


8,321,721 
15,169,549 


6,187,535 
10,621,608 


2,134,186 
4,547,941 






1,621,244 


737,270 


883,974 




5-10 ha 


1,239,883 
1,251,454 
2,491,337 


998,686 
2,003,633 


252,768 
487,704 




10-20 ha 


1,085,005 
1,019,516 
2,104,521 


664,631 
1,392,654 


354,885 
711,867 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



309 





(My calculation) 
Number of workers 
under 14 years 


% of minors in 
total 


Number of workers 
per enterprise 


total 


family 


hired 


total 


fami- 
ly 


hired 


total 


fami- 
ly 


hired 




44 004 


49 9fi7 


1 737 

-L, t O t 


9 n 
^•2 


^•3 


U.g 


-L-O 


U.g 


fl A 

u -l 




Q9 Q38 


88 818 


4 190 


d.g 


4.4 


J-3 


J- 8 


J-6 


fl „ 
"•2 




m^i 101 


19^ 10Q 


Q QQ9 


A „ 
4 -6 


A „ 
4-9 


Z.4 


9 „ 




U.4 




913 841 


174 fi07 


qq 9Q4 


4.7 




^>-3 


4 -3 


d-2 






71,057 


32,946 


38,111 


3.4 


3-9 


3-1 


7-9 


3-2 


4.7 




44,696 


465 


44,231 


3-6 


1-2 


3. 7 


52. 5 


1-5 


50.g 




32,476 


236 


32,240 


3.5 


1-2 


3-5 


73.o 


1.4 


71-6 




601,637 


464,212 


137,425 


3.9 


4.4 


3-0 


2-6 


1-8 


0-8 


















3-3 






119,759 


104,366 


15,393 


4-8 


5-2 


3-1 


3-8 


3-1 


0.7 




94,082 


70,241 


23,841 


4.5 


5-0 


3-3 


5-1 


3.4 


1-7 



310 



V. I. LENIN 



Part 2 a. Table 6. Cattle population 



Number of agricultural enterprises 





a 

no poul- 
try or 
other 

livestock 
a 


I 

poultry 
but no 
other 
livestock 

P 

\ 


other 
livestock, 

but Tl O 

poultry 
Y 


both 
poultry 
anH other 

livestock 
8 

/ 


total 




Under 0. 5 ha 


714, 035 


185, 382 


498,870 


685,773 


1,370,025 




0. 5 -2 ha 


93,210 


44,308 


217,790 


939,141 


1,201,239 




2-5 ha 


17,812 


7,884 


69,634 


910,947 
-v ' 


988,465 




5-20 ha 


7,075 


2,089 


28,304 


1,028,071 


1,058,464 




20-100 ha 


1,569 


207 


3,346 


257,069 

V 


260,622 




100 ha and 
over 


331 


28 


1,228 


21,979 
-v ■ ' 


23,235 




Incl. 200 ha 

and over 


140 


16 


820 


11,911 


12,747 




Total 


835,032 


239,898 


819,172 
4,66 


3,842,980 
2,152 


4,902,050 




20-50 ha 














5-10 ha 


4,824 


1,574 


21,179 


625,221 


647,974 




10-20 ha 


2,251 


515 


7,125 


402,850 


410,490 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



311 



I leave out the number of those 
owning poultry (and the number 
of chickens, ducks, geese) 



in agricultural enterprises. 



keeping for their farms: 





cattle 


number of owners 


X 
total 
number 
of such 
enter- 
prises 


they have 


of 
sheep 


of 
pigs 


of 
goats 


horses 
but no 
horned 
cattle 


l 

n ai'ti £in 

IHJL llCLL 

cattle 
but no 
horses 


horses 

and 
horned 
cattle 




164,907 


6,573 


157,024 


1,310 


48,348 


923,528 


705,477 




670,552 


ZD, / DO 


Olo,oZl 


Z4,yt>0 


49,122 


908,996 


627,417 




954,878 


20,685 


760,651 


173,542 


55,202 


828,156 


219,066 




1,053,432 


9,916 


364,882 


678,634 


140,365 


972,062 


193,464 




ZDU,U01 


1,368 


6,762 


251,921 


QE QAQ 


oa a ci o 


QPL AQQ 




23,182 


133 


163 


22,886 


11,875 


20,566 


2,618 




12,722 


53 


81 


12,588 


7,964 


11,182 


1,415 




3,127,002 


65,441 


1,908,303 


1,153,258 


390,821 


3,899,820 


1,783,375 




















644,040 


7,292 


299,631 


337,117 


65,583 


585,724 


120,813 




409,392 


2,624 


65,251 


341,517 


74,782 


386,338 


72,651 



[ctd on next page] 



312 



V. I. LENIN 



[ctd] 





Cattle population 


horses 


horned cattle 


sheep 


pigs 




total 


of them 
cows 


Under 
0. 5 ha 


9,598 


196,262 


173,567 


179,402 


1,975,177 




0. 5 -2 ha 


61,769 


1,119,370 


852,962 


236,359 


2,407,972 




2-5 ha 


241,636 


3,154,323 


2,030,808 


359,943 


3,107,038 




5-20 ha 


1 323 490 


7,873,092 


3,989,026 


1 448 545 


6 334 146 




20-100 ha 


1,202,174 


5,305,871 


2,285,643 


2,326,268 


3,655,146 




100 ha and 
over 


652,436 


2,327,291 


1,007,959 


4,371,103 


1,386,272 




Inch 
200 ha and 
over 


491,670 


1,692,299 


713,947 


3,864,778 


1,026,651 




Total 


3,491,103 


19,976,209 


10,339,965 


8,921,620 


18,865,751 




20-50 ha 














5-10 ha 


528,088 


3,748,888 


2,042,953 


537,561 


3,158,595 




10-20 ha 


795,402 


4,124,194 


1,946,073 


910,984 


3,175,551 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



313 







(My calculation) 


goats 


+ 

no live- 
stock 


(2-x) 
no cattle 


(2— K + X) 

no horses 


1,312,416 






899 417 


1 919 153 


2 076 177 


1,384,811 
419,208 




137 518 


623 897 


1 242 718 


<2ha 


1 036 935 


2 543 050 


3 318 895 




25,696 


51,399 


812,050 


429,656 




9,164 


12,107 


376 989 


99,506 




1,776 


2,140 


8,902 


8,314 




359 


384 


547 


4,440 




156 


165 


246 


3,653,910 




1,073,930 


2,609,080 


4,517,383 












255,190 




6,398 


8,758 


308,389 


174,466 




2,766 


3,349 


68,600 



314 



V. I. LENIN 



Ibid. Table 7. Agricultural enterprises 





Enterprises 
using the follow- 
ing types of 
machines in the 
last year 


steam ploughs 


broadcast sowers 




farms 


own 


farms 


own 


farms 


number of 
steam 
ploughs 
owned 


farms 


number of 

sowers 

owned 


Under O.5 


18,466 


5 


1 


1 


2,696 


68 


68 




O.5-2 


114,986 


13 


3 


4 


11,442 


468 


471 




2-5 


325,665 


23 


5 


7 


15,780 


4,219 


4,225 




5-20 


772,536 


81 


25 


26 


87,921 


63,067 


63,183 




20-100 


243,365 


319 


21 


23 


73,481 


67,958 


69,919 




100 and > 


22,957 


2,554 


360 


381 


15,594 


15,527 


28,255 




200 and > 


12,652 


2,112 


321 


341 


9,429 


9,412 


20,347 




2 


1,497,975 


2,995 


415 


442 


206,914 


151,307 


166,121 




5-10 ha 


419,170 


31 


15 


15 


33,272 


19,220 


19,246 




10-20 ha 


353,366 


50 


10 


11 


54,649 


43,847 


43,937 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 315 

My symbols: 

A= farms using machines in general 

B= " owning machines 

C= number of own machines of a given type 

with use of agricultural machinery 





reapers 


seed drills and planters 


inter-row cultivators 


farms 


own 


farms 


own 


A 


B 


C 


farms 


number of 

reapers 

owned 


farms 


number of 
machines 




231 


178 


189 


998 


21 


23 


31 


13 


13 




1,132 


569 


598 


3,899 


224 


226 


270 


200 


202 




6,812 


4,422 


4,459 


4,983 


1,578 


1,581 


1,140 


1,052 


1,060 




137,624 


125,640 


130,561 


33,123 


24,319 


24,370 


4,146 


3,726 


3,773 




136,104 


131,292 


158,375 


30,795 


28,125 


28,438 


6,011 


5,597 


5,794 




19,422 


19,297 


47,381 


9,327 


9,274 


13,493 


2,814 


2,793 


4,978 




10,943 


10,887 


32,270 


5,761 


5,741 


9,479 


1,716 


1,706 


3,537 




301,325 


281,398 


341,563 


83,125 


63,541 


68,131 


14,412 


13,381 


15,820 




36,261 


30,816 


31,128 


10,443 


6,273 


6,280 


1,395 


1,214 


1,227 




101,363 


94,824 


99,433 


22,680 


18,046 


18,090 


2,751 


2,512 


2,546 



[ctd on next page] 



316 



V. I. LENIN 



[ctd] 





steam threshers 


(other threshers) 


potato planters 




A 


B 


C 


A 


B 


C 


A 


B 


C 


Under 0. 5 


10,468 


116 


125 


5,431 


444 


444 


4 


3 


3 




0-5-2 


60,750 


680 


702 


39,321 


10,370 


10,405 


71 


32 


32 




2-5 


127,739 


1,455 


1,500 


163,287 


116,187 


116,297 


55 


29 


29 




5-20 


203,438 


3,360 


3,441 


539,285 


502,826 


503,717 


312 


204 


204 




20-100 


69,005 


4,311 


4,380 


190,618 


185,895 


187,317 


866 


679 


681 




100 and 

> 


17,467 


9,906 


10,436 


9,061 


8,656 


9,746 


1,352 


1,342 


1,624 




200 and 

> 


10,721 


7,702 


8,202 


3,649 


3,488 


4,212 


1,010 


1,005 


1,271 






488,867 


19,828 


20,584 


947,003 


824,378 


827,926 


2,660 


2,289 


2,573 




5-10 ha 


118,840 


1,687 


1,733 


275,793 


249,979 


250,490 


116 


84 


84 




10-20 ha 


84,598 


1,673 


1,708 


263,492 


252,847 


196 


120 


120 







MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



317 





potato lifters 


grain crushers 


separators 


A 


B 


C 


A 


B 


C 


A 


B 


C 




5 


2 


2 


34 


33 


33 


757 


670 


684 




29 


4 


4 


446 


437 


437 


11,720 


10,463 


10,550 




93 


61 


63 


2,476 


2,410 


2,414 


56,955 


53,210 


53,328 




4,196 


3,672 


3,691 


12,943 


12,735 


12,750 


180,641 


175,221 


175,467 




5,442 


5,040 


5,193 


9,686 


9,591 


9,627 


80,137 


78,293 


78,556 




1,239 


1,227 


1,839 


3,747 


3,735 


4,009 


6,696 


6,570 


6,897 




647 


640 


1,103 


2,615 


2,612 


2,840 


3,512 


3,438 


3,686 




11,004 


10,006 


10,792 


29,332 


28,941 


29,270 


336,906 


324,427 


325,482 




713 


571 


573 


4,916 


4,808 


4,816 


85,986 


82,807 


82,903 




3,483 


3,101 


3,118 


8,027 


7,927 


7,934 


94,655 


92,414 


92,564 



318 



V. I. LENIN 



[Only the first five categories 
Ibid. Table 8. Connection between agricul 





Number of agricultural 


sugar 
refineries 


distilleries 


starch 
factories 




T T 1 f\ 

Under U. 5 


8 


582 


9 




0. 5 -2 


12 


4,199 


7 




2-5 


23 


11,459 


10 




K OA 


67 


13,859 


29 




on a f\f\ 

zO-100 


118 


2,750 


60 




100 and > 


231 


3,910 


319 




zuu ana 


170 


3,056 


281 




v 


459 


36,759 


434 




5-10 ha 


33 


8,800 


19 




10-20 ha 


34 


5,059 


10 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



319 



were counted in 1895] 

tural enterprises and side-line industries 



enterprises connected with: 




flour mills 


breweries 


saw mills 


brick works 




1,265 


191 


360 


248 




3,893 


494 


889 


616 




8,383 


1,009 


1,908 


1,285 




16,747 


2.812 


4,895 


3,178 




4,193 


1,343 


1,504 


1,952 




943 


185 


498 


1,449 




656 


85 


386 


1,072 




35,424 


6,034 


10,054 


8,728 




9,467 


1,281 


2,511 


1,621 




7,280 


1,531 


2,384 


1,557 



320 



V. I. LENIN 



Ibid. Table 9. Owners and other supervisory person 



Owners and other supervisory personnel at agricultu 



A. 1. Agricul 



Independent 



total 



of them 



without 
side line 



with 
side line 



108 



manage- 
ment and 
supervi- 
sory per- 
sonnel 



Under 0. 5 ha 



85,213 



66,111 



19,102 



14,175 



0. 5 -2 ha 



364,755 



253,337 



111,418 



4, 591 



2-5 ha 



717,699 



495,439 



222,280 



406 



5-20 ha 



980,145 



809,107 



171,038 



255 



20-100 ha 



253,877 



230,363 



23,514 



216 



100 ha 
and over 



22,731 



18,259 



4,472 



140 



200 ha 
and over 



12,568 



9,541 



3,027 



64 



Total 



2,424,420 



1,872,616 



551,804 



19,783 



5-10 ha 



588,958 



468,744 



120,214 



142 



10-20 ha 



391,187 



40,363 



50,824 



113 



Total A (A.l+A.2-6) = under 0. 5 ha = 494,76l\ 

0. 5 -2 " =568,575 J 



1,063,336 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



321 



nel at agricultural enterprises by main occupation: 



ral enterprises were distributed by main occupation as follows: 



ture 


A. 2-6 Vegetable gar- 
dening, livestock farm- 
ing fisheries, etc. 


B. Industry 




day 
labourers, 
labourers 


independent 


ancillary 
personnel 


inde- 
pendent 




total 


of them 
engaged 
in handi- 
crafts 








of them 
appren- 
tices, 
assistants 

and 
workers 


ancillary 
personnel 




total 






351,347 


11,940 


30,584 


253 194 


17,663 


752,278 


703 935 




155,330 


13,007 


30,114 


203 677 


10,042 


305,102 


291 039 




16,636 


5,564 


12,688 


108 968 

1XJ(J ,i/UO 


2,206 


65,004 


61,212 




1,078 


2 040 


4 979 


37 575 


201 


5,477 


4 613 




7 


411 


1Q7 


3 519 


4 


128 


43 






41 


7 


930 




7 








18 


1 


82 




1 






524,398 


33,003 


78,560 


607,156 


30,116 


1,127,996 


1,060,842 




















1,053 


1,458 


2,628 


28,811 


174 


4,950 


4,276 




25 


582 


2,351 


8,764 


27 


527 


337 



[ctd on next page] 



322 



V. I. LENIN 





Owners and other supervisory personnel at agricul 

by main occup a 


C. 1-11 
Trade and 
Insurance 


C. 12-26 
Transport and 
Communications 


C. 27 
Hotels and Inns 




Independent 








Independent 








Independent 










Ancillary 
personnel 






Ancillary 
personnel 






Ancillary 
personnel 




Under 0. 5 ha 


70,786 


14,878 


11,993 


104,011 


27,837 


863 




From O.5 ha 
to under 2 ha 


40,908 


3,089 


10,046 


32,454 


23,104 


210 




2-5 


17,703 


540 


7,544 


8,286 


17,454 


54 




5-20 


7,215 


92 


3,646 


1,016 


12,728 


12 




20-100 


720 


8 


243 


20 


818 






100 and > 


36 




3 




10 






9flfl Tin 

and over 


13 




1 




2 






Total 


137,368 


18,607 


33,475 


145,877 


81,951 


1,139 




















5-10 ha 


5,386 


75 


2,768 


985 


9,281 


10 




10-20 ha 


1,829 


17 


878 


121 


3,447 


2 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



323 



Ihis figures 
letter is 



mine 








tural enterprises were distributed 
tion as follows 


Managers of public M 
enterprises 


Total 






D 


Private and public 
employment, the H 
professions 


No occuption, 
and no occupation 
reported 


G 


Members of households 
without trade at all K 
or only with side line 


of them hired labour 
(2 of the columns 
marked in red pencil) 


Household serv- 
ices and casual 
hired labour 


Domestic servants 
living in 




17,351 


101,442 


227,116 


323 


5,746 


1,481 


2,084,060 


1,273,137 
+14,175 




3780 


29,086 


70,333 


32 


2,108 


1,915 


1,294,449 


530,889 
+4,591 




501 


11,297 


13,823 


9 


242 


1,732 


1,006,277 






52 


3,916 


3,307 


6 


30 


1,850 


1,065,539 






2 


756 


407 


1 


3 


861 


262,191 








61 


57 






243 


23,566 








24 


13 






100 


12,887 






21,686 


146,558 


315,043 


371 


8,129 


8,112 


5,736,082 
























44 


2,636 


2,515 


6 


26 


1,041 


652,798 






8 


1,280 


792 


0 


4 


809 


412,741 





324 



V. I. LENIN 



Part 1 b: Table 3. Ploughland 





Number 
of farms 

with 
plough 
land 


Their 
total 
area 
in ha 


Of the total area 


Total 


of this 


spring 
wheat 


winter 
wheat 




cereals accord 


Under 
0. 5 ha 


1,352,763 


368,098 


246,961 


1,299 


1,912 




0. 5 -2 ha 


1,232,970 


1,588,736 


49^ 


976,345 

5-o 


0. 4 


8,115 
2-6 


0-9 


21,819 
1-8 




2-5 ha 


985,613 


3,948,861 


2 

54. 6 


,350,006 

9-6 


1 

0.4 


7,468 
4-9 


S 

2.3 


9,763 
7-5 
















5-20 ha 


1,050,696 


13,124,460 


56. j 


,728,039 

31-6 


7 

0-5 


2,891 
20. 3 


4£ 
3. t 


0,479 
32. 5 




20- 
100 ha 


259,475 


11,942,678 


r 

57. 2 


,220,699 

29. 6 


10 
0-9 


6,714 
29-8 


45 
8. 4 


6,074 
32. 2 




100 ha 
and over 


23,262 


9,368,409 


59. 6 


>, 910, 304 

24. 2 


15 
1-6 


1,878 
42. 4 


34 
3-5 


3,725 
26. 0 




200 ha 
and over 


12,769 


7,379,305 


4,683,308 


114,751 


262,029 




Total 


4,904,779 


40,341,242 


24 
56. 7 


,432,354 

100. 0 


35 
0-8 


8,365 
100. 0 


1,3! 
3.! 


23,772 

100.0 






















<2 ha) 1,223,306 
2-20) 10,078,045 
> 20) 13,131,003 


9,414 
90,359 
258,592 


23,731 
536,242 
769,799 




5-10 ha 


641,983 


5,034,959 


3,379,657 


26,818 


178,520 




10-20 ha 


408,713 


7,489,501 


4,348,382 


46,073 


251,959 





Bottom %% (Zahn, 1910, p. 574 109 ): |_ J=% of total area of 
figure is % of all area under a g i v e n cereal, etc. [see p. 3 0 

*See p. 327.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



325 



and its cultivation 

ploughland makes up 



under -f a ^ * nese ? = total area under 1 
\ cereals (after Zahn) J 





spelt 


rye 


barley 


oats 


mixed 
cereals 


sugar- 
beet 


ing to Zahn 




1,615 


32,386 


8,511 


10,667 


1,444 


1,257 




1 

0-6 


4,235 
6. 9 


26 
11. 8 


0,602 
4-8 


2-6 


56,479 
4-0 


1 


15,499 
2. 7 


1 

O.7 


5,809 
1-9 


O.4 


8,473 
1-9 




5 

1-2 


3,576 
23.! 


64 
15.! 


8,844 
10. 6 


1 

3. 7 


57,406 
9-7 


3 

8-6 


71,046 
8-8 


1 

1-9 


1,873 
5. 8 


1 

O.4 


8,858 
3.7 




























11 
0-9 


7,920 
50. 5 


2,1( 
15. 3 


)6,517 
34. 5 


5 

4-0 


42,951 
33. 5 


1,4 
10. 7 


73,212 
35-0 


2C 
1-6 


4,784 
22. 7 


r 

0-6 


7,582 
15.J 




0-3 


2,730 
18. 9 


1,79 
14. 2 


5,482 
29. 4 


4 
3. 8 


76,069 
29. 4 


1,3 
10. 9 


84,181 
32. 9 


27 
2. 2 


3,528 
30.3 


125,961 
\U\ 24. 5 




0-0 


1,460 
0-6 


1,26 
12. 8 


2,945 
20. 7 


3 

3-8 


79,896 
23. 4 


8 

8. 7 


65,713 
20-6 


35 
3-6 


4,560 
39.3 


2! 
2. 8 


H,691 
54. 8 




282 


1,018,704 


298,069 


651,013 


288,599 


221,857 




2c 
0-5 


1,536 
100. 0 


6,1( 


6,776 
100.Q 


1,6 
3. 7 


21,312 
lOO.o 


4,2 
9. 8 


10,318 
lOO.Q 


901,998 
[2^1 100. 0 


513,822 

[i^l 100.0 




15,850 
171,496 
44,190 


292,988 
2,755,361 
3,058,427 


64,990 
700,357 
855,965 


116,166 
1,844, 
2,249,894 


17,253 
256,657 
628,088 


9,730 
96,440 
407,652 




63,433 


916,289 


239,689 


624,989 


81,684 


31,327 




54,487 


1,190,228 


202,262 


848,223 


123,100 


46,255 



[ctd on next page] 

agricultural enterprises ( = 43,106,486), and the second 
of this notebook*]. 



326 



V. I. LENIN 



[ctd] 



(This table is taken in full.) 









Of the total area ploughland makes 


up 












of this 


sown 


to 
















potatoes 


fodder 
plants 


vege- 
tables 
in fields 


other 
field 
crops 


field 
pasture 


fallow 
(bare) 


Under 
0. r ha 

O 


166,327 


8,139 


7,787 


3,733 


745 


1,139 


0 r-9 ha 

\J . g L lid. 


333,605 


80,516 


20,877 


29,127 


11,836 


9,353 




20.! 


15. 8 


3-6 


3. 4 


1-1 


10. 8 


1-3 


3.! 


0-5 


1-2 


O.4 


1-0 


2-5 ha 


447,484 


262,426 


42,916 


94,397 


42,207 


41,742 




IO.4 


14.! 


6.J 


10. j 


i-o 


16. 2 


2-2 


8-9 


1-0 


3-9 


1-0 


4-2 


5-20 ha 


948,993 


841,726 


100,569 


308,102 


221,618 


280,695 




6-9 


29. 9 


6. t 


32-6 


0. 7 


37-9 


2-2 


29. 0 


1-6 


20. 4 


2-o 


28. 4 


20-100 ha 


609,723 


720,375 


62,546 


310,916 


492,910 


393,490 




4-8 


19-2 


5-7 


27. 9 


0-5 


23. 5 


2-5 


29. 2 


3-9 


45. 5 


3.! 


39-5 


100 ha 
and over 


667,698 


671,500 


30,841 


316,388 


315,073 


266,936 


6-7 


21-o 


6-8 


26. o 


0-3 


11. 6 


3-2 


29. 8 


3-2 


29. 0 


2-7 


26. 9 


9nn Via 

iUU lid 

and over 


562,501 


528,225 


22,351 


254,403 


246,139 


214,385 


Total 


3,173,830 


2,584,682 


265,536 


1,062,663 


1,084,389 


993,355 




7.4 


ioo. 0 


6-o 


100. 0 


0-6 


100.0 


2-5 


100.0 


2-5 


100.0 


2-3 


100.0 


< 2 ha) 
2-20) 
> 20) 


499,932 
1,396,477 
1,277,421 


88,655 
1,104,152 
1,391,875 


28,664 
143,485 
93,387 


32,860 
402,499 
627,304 


12,581 
263,825 
807,983 


10,492 
322,437 
660,426 


5-10 ha 


470,609 


381,869 


49,776 


134,387 


79,264 


102,003 


10-20 ha 


478,384 


459,857 


50,793 


173,715 


142,354 


179,692 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



327 



%% according to Zahn 





Cereals 


Total 
area 
under 
cereals 


Vege- 
table 
gardens 


Meadows 


Fat 
pastures 


Vine- 
yards 


< 2 ha 


























13. 7 


4 -3 


21.7 


3. 7 


5. 9 


30. 7 


12. 6 


5. 2 


°-5 


l -5 


I.4 


30. 6 


2-5 


























19. 0 


10. 2 


32. 5 


9-5 


1-7 


15. 2 


18. 6 


13-5 


1-0 


4-9 


O.g 


34. t 


5-20 


























19. 8 


34-0 


36. 0 


33. 5 


i-o 


28. 8 


16. 8 


38. 9 


1-5 


24. 1 


0-3 


29-6 


20-100 


























18. 8 


29. 6 


35-7 


30-5 


0. 6 


16. 6 


12.7 


26. 8 


3-3 


49. 2 


0-1 


5-1 


100 


























and > 


17. 8 


21. 9 


33. 9 


22. 8 


0. 4 


8.7 


9. 4 


15. 6 


1-7 


20.3 


0. 0 


0. 6 




























2 


18. 6 


lOO-o 


34. 2 


lOO-o 


1-1 


loo.o 


13. 8 


100.0 


2. 0 


100.0 


O.3 


lOO-o 





Total 
farmland 


Area 
under 
forest 
hus- 
bandry 


Small 
pastures 


Waste 
and un- 
suitable 
land 


Other 
land 


Total 
area 


< 2 ha 


























69. 5 


5.4 


20. 6 


6.7 


2. 2 


5. 2 


2.4 


4-0 


5-3 


I2.4 


lOO-o 


5-8 


2-5 


























76. 8 


IO.4 


15-2 


8-5 


2. 2 


9-1 


3-1 


9-1 


2.7 


11. 0 


ioo-o 


io. 0 


5-20 


























75-7 


32. 7 


15. 4 


27. 6 


2-6 


33-5 


4.4 


4O.9 


1-9 


25. 4 


lOO-o 


31.9 


20-100 


























73.9 


29. 3 


".3 


28. 5 


2-8 


33.7 


4-4 


37. 4 


1-6 


19. 5 


lOO-o 


29.3 


100 


























and - 


71.! 


22. 2 


22. 2 


28. 7 


2. 0 


18. 6 


1-8 


8. 6 


3.4 


31.7 


ioo-o 


23-o 




























2 


73. 9 


100. 0 


17. 8 


ioo. 0 


2-5 


loo.Q 


3.4 


100.0 


2.4 


100.0 


ioo-o 


lOO-o 



328 



V. I. LENIN 





Ibid. Table 2. Number and area of farms 


Agricultural enter- 
prises in general 


Of the total area 




number 
of enter- 
prises 


area 


land 
owned 


land 
lease 


other 
land *) 


Under 0. 5 ha 


357,945 


85,395 


6,332 


20,068 


48,995 




0. 5 -2 ha 


182,806 


182,068 


77,613 


60,207 


44,248 




2-5 ha 


34,998 


113,967 


73,209 


35,407 


5,351 




5 -20 ha 


3,751 


27,679 


19,590 


7,434 


655 




20 -100 ha 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 




100 ha and over 














200 ha and over 














Total 


579,500 


409,109 


186,744 


123,116 


99,249 




< 2 ha 
2-20 ha 
> 20 ha 














5-10 ha 


3,687 


26,769 


18,945 


7,183 


641 




10-20 ha 


64 


910 


645 


251 


141 





) Other land = Dienstland, Deputant land, etc. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



329 



I have made heavy cuts in this table, 
leaving out details for owned and leased 
land, etc. 



of agricultural labourers and day labourers 





Of the total area 


Farms holding 
land exclusively 


plough- 
land 


under vegetable 
gardens and or- 
chards (without 
decorative 
gardens) 


under 
vine- 
yards 


farmland 
in general 


under 
vegetable 
gardens 


under 
potatoes 




64,735 


11,404 


580 


79,383 


43,904 


113,345 




132,140 


8,210 


1,627 


167,420 


1,034 


13,388 




72,877 


2,222 


504 


101,679 


45 


38 




16,123 


409 


43 


24,018 


— 


— 




— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 
































285,875 


22,245 


2,754 


372,500 


44,983 


126,771 


















15,665 


398 


43 


23,235 








458 


11 




783 







330 



V. I. LENIN 



per farm 


Quantity of 
all livestock 
in terms of 
big cattle 


farmland 

Via 


all livestock 
in terms 

Ol 

big cattle 


0-17 


0. 4 


826,963 
854,016 




1-1 


1-54 


1,922,168 
1,294,848 




3-2 


4.2 


4,243,647 
2,079,120 








4,595,858 
3,500,848 




35.5 


29.2 


7,662,750 
1,553,079 




299. 3 


159. 8 


3,764,098 
833,912 








940,790 
635,155 




5. 5 


5.i 


29,380,405 








2,749,131 

15,204,426 

11,426,848 
2,386,991 








5,141,657 
1,894,631 




14.i 


14.i 


5,819,122 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



331 



Per permanent labourer 



Farmland 
ha 



All livestock 
in terms 
of 

big cattle 



bottom: 
of them 
permanent 
labourers 

Number of 
all labourers 



O.4 



O.c 



2,014,307 
854,016 



U 



2,338,745 
1,294,848 



2,913,877 
2,079,120 



4,595,858 
3,500,848 



2,069,433 
1,553,079 



8. 4 



1,237,329 
833,912 



940,790 
635,155 



3.i 



15,169,549 
10,115,823 



< 2 ha 
2-20: 
>20: 



4,353,052 
2,148,864 

7,509,735 
5,579,968 

3,306,762 
2,386,991 



2.4 



2.7 



2,491,337 
1,894,631 



3.6 



3.6 



2,104,521 
1,606,217 



332 



V. I. LENIN 



Statistics of the German 
For comparison, I take the 1895 data 







Farms with agricultural 




number 










in particular 


1895 


of 

agricultural 
enterprises 




no 
livestock 




livestock 

in 
general 


total 
number of 

such 
enterprises 




< 2 ha 
2-5 
5-20 
5-10 \ 
10-20 J 
20-100 
100 anrl > 


3,237,030 
1,016,318 
998,804 
605',814 
392,990 
281,767 
25,061 




831,771 
26,658 
9,090 
6,542 
2,548 
1,837 
380 




2,405,259 
989,660 
989,714 
599,272 
390,442 
279,930 
24,681 


965,517 
960,110 
985,911 
596,429 
389',482 

97Q 97/1 

24,638 




LoVO. 


c ceo qon 




869,736 




4,689,244 


3,215,450 




1907: 


5,736,082 
+ 177,102 


1,073,930 
+ 204,194 


4,662,152 
—27,092 


3,127,002 
—88,448 




1895 
Y 2 -l ha 
1-2 ha 


676,215 
707,235 


91,406 
51,708 


584,809 
655,527 


521,172 
243,588*) 




1882: 


5,276,344 


834,441 


4,441,903 


3,255,887 





% of farms 





no livestock 


livestock in general 






1895 


1882 


1895 


1882 




< 2 ha 


25. 70 


26-ao 


74-30 


73. 70 




2-5 


2-62 


2 -36 


97-38 


97. 64 




5-20 


0-91 


0-56 


99-09 


99.44 




20-100 


0-65 


0-26 


99-35 


99.74 




100 and > 


1-52 


0-38 


98-48 


99-62 




Total 


15-65 


15. 81 


84-35 


84- 19 





*) These figures erroneously transposed: 
243,588 refers to 50 ares-1 ha 
521,172 refers to 1 ha-2 ha 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



333 



Reich, Vol. 112 

on the number of farms with livestock: 



or dairy production keeping for their farm 



big cattle 


in general 




specifically 










horses and 
horned 
cattle 


horned but 
no horned 
cattle 


horned 
cattle but 
no horses 


o h o on 

BllCtJJJ 


pigs 






28,954 
152,440 
584,561 
278,748 
305,813 
267,190 

24,357 


40,080 
20,968 
10,601 
7,536 
3,065 
1,473 
149 


896,483 
786,702 
390,749 
310,145 
80,604 
10,611 
132 


141,466 
80,057 

184,648 
87,985 
96',663 

15,072 


1,731,919 
799,803 
887,424 
527,741 
359,683 

ZOO,U / o 

22,222 


1,330,953 
192,272 
160,808 
98,071 
62,737 

o4,oUo 

2,609 




1,057,502 


73,271 


2,084,677 


543,741 


3,707,441 


1,720,948 




1,153,258 
+ 95,756 


65,441 
—7,830 


1,908,303 
—176,374 


390,821 
—152,920 


3,899,820 
+ 192,379 


1,783,375 
+ 62,427 




+87,926 












5,067 
21,752 


12,213 
18,829 


226,308 
480,591 


34,911 
41,101 


428,775 
483,609 


357,522 
246,734 




996,244 


42,180 


2,217,463 


749,217 


2,950,588 


1,505,357 



with 





big cattle 


horses and 


horses 


but no 


horned cattle but 




in general 


horned cattle 


horned cattle 


no horses 




1895 


1882 


1895 


1882 


1895 


1882 


1895 


1882 




29. 83 


35. 84 


0-89 


0-91 


1-24 


0-64 


27. 70 


34-29 




94-47 


95. 18 




14-83 


2-06 


1-47 


77. 41 


78 -88 




98. 71 


99. „ 


58-53 


57.31 


1-06 


0-78 


39.12 


41-08 




99-12 


99. 68 


94. 8 3 


94-87 


0-52 


0-28 


3. 77 


4-53 




98-31 


99-55 


97-19 


99.Q7 


0-59 


0-13 


0-53 


0-35 




57. 84 


61-vi 


19-02 


18-88 


1-32 


0-80 


37-50 


42. 0 3 



334 



V. I. LENIN 



Under 2 ha 
2-5 ha 
5 -20 ha 
5 -10 ha 
10 -20 ha 
20 -100 ha 
100 and over 

1895 
1907 



1895 



Number of farms 



without big 
cattle: 



} 



56,208 
12,893 
9,385 
3,508 
2,493 
423 



without 
horses: 



2,271,513 3,167,996 



842,910 
403,642 
319,530 
84,112 
13,104 
555 



2,343,530 4,428,207 



+ 265,550 +89,176 



Number of those 
owning horned cattle 



1895 



1907 



925,437 802,120- 



939,142 934,193 — 



975,310 1,043,516 + 



588,893 636,748 + 



386,417 406,768 + 



277,801 258,683- 



24,489 23,049 — 



3,142,179 3,061,561— 



2,609,080 4,517,383 3,061,561 



—80,618 

3,213,707 
(1882) 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 335 



cf. Schmelzle 110 
N.B. 


Number of those owning 
livestock in general (Nutzvieh) 










1895 


1907 


Number of 
horned cattle 
per owning 
farm 




Under 0. 5 ha 
0. 5 -2 ha 


1,164,923 
1,240,336 


1,184,643 + 
1,156,931— 


1895 


1907 


+ % 








1-53 


1-64 


7-2 


< 2 ha 


2,405,336 


2,341,574— 


0 

^•98 


q 

*-38 


10-3 


2-5 


989,660 


980,581— 




5-89 


16-6 


5-10 


599,272 


646,400 + 


8. 4 2 


10-14 


20. 4 


10-20 

JNOl rl 


390,422 


409,975— 


16-74 


20-si 


22-5 


2-20 ha 


1,979,374 


2,036,956 + 


79-92 


100. 97 


26-3 


20 -100 
100 and > 


279,930 
24,681 


260,415 — 
23,207— 








20 and > 


304,611 


283,622— 








Total 


4,689,244 


4,662,152— 








1882: 


4,441,903 





336 



V. I. LENIN 



[Cows not counted separately in 1895] 
Growth of livestock 





horses 


horned cattle 






1885 


1907 




1895 


1907 








0. 5 -2 ha 


14,528 


9,598 


— 


237,606 


196,363 


— 






<0. 5 ha 


74,356 


61,769 




1,177,633 


1,119,370 








50-ares 1 ha 
1-2 ha 


21,866 
52,490 






305,904 
871,729 






(1895 
=100) 
1907: 




2 ha 


88,884 


71,367 




1,415,239 


1,315,632 








2-5 


225,998 


241,636 


+ 


2,802,900 


3,154,323 


+ 


II2.5 




5-20 


1,147,454 


1,323,490 


+ 


6,227,233 


7,873,092 


+ 


126 




5-10 


441,345 


528,088 


+ 


2,974,531 


3,748,898 


+ 


126. 0 




10-20 


706,109 


795,402 


+ 


3,252,702 


4,124,194 


+ 


126. 8 




20-100 


1,254,223 


1,202,174 




4,650,993 


5,305, 871 


+ 


114-i 




100 and > 


650,739 


652,436 


+ 


1,957,277 


2,327,291 


+ 


118. 8 




2 = 


3,367,298 


3,491,103 


+ 


17,053,642 


19,976,209 


+ 







1882 3,114,420 15,454,372 

cows: 12,689,526 

1882 

bulls: 2,764,846 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



337 



population 





sheep 


pigs 




1885 


190 7 




1895 


1907 








223,453 


179,402 


— 


1,473,823 


1,975,177 


+ 






344,234 


236,359 




1,992,166 


2,407,972 


+ 






142,297 
201,937 






873,416 
1,118,750 






(1895 
=100) 




567,687 


415,761 




3,465,989 


4,383,149 


+ 


126. 4 




489,275 


359,943 


— 


2,338,588 


3,107,038 


+ 


132. 8 




1,871,295 


1,448,545 




4,210,934 


6,334,146 


+ 


150. 0 




682,591 


537,561 




2,106,453 


3,158,595 


+ 






1,188,704 


910,984 




2,104,481 


3,175,551 


+ 






3,498,936 


2,326,268 




2,658,560 


3,655,146 


+ 


132. 9 




6,165,677 


4,371,103 




888,571 


1,386,272 


+ 


167. 2 




12,592,870 


8,921,620 




13,562,642 


18,865,751 


+ 





21,116,957 8,431,266 



[ctd on next page] 



338 



V. I. LENIN 



[ctd] 

In terms of big cattle 











sheep = Vio; pig = X U; 
goat = y 12 






goats 




















see 
p. 40 






1895 


1907 


1895 


1907 






< 0. 5 ha 


A C\Of\ AHO 

1,260,17b 


A <■)•( Ci A A f 

1,312,416 


747,651 


826,963 


t /y,uiz 




< 0. 5 -2 ha 


1,225,174 


1,384,810 


1,886,552 


1,922,168 


+ 35,616 




50 ares-1 ha 


754,841 












1895 


1-2 ha 


470,333 












= 100 


< 2 ha 


2,485,350 


2,691,226 


2,634,503 


2,749,131 


1 AAA l~* C~\ Cl 

+ 114,628 




2-5 ha 


295,194 


419,208 


3,687,071 


4,243,647 


+ 556,576 




5-20 ha 


252 096 


429 656 


8,635,557 


10,960,779 




126. 9 


5-10 ha 


148,328 


255,190 


4,023,109 


5,141,657 


+1,118,548 




10-20 ha 


103,768 


174,466 


4,612,448 


5,819,122 


+1,206,674 




20 -100 ha 


64,374 


99,506 


6,925,115 


7,662,750 


+ 737,635 




100 and > 


8,237 


8,314 


3,447,412 


3,764,098 


+ 316,686 




Total 


3,105,251 


3,653,910 


95 329 658 


29,380,405 


+ 4 













1882 2,452,527 



*See p. 368.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



339 



Cultivated farmland 




+ 


1 


+++ 


+ 


1 


1 


1 


1907 


359,553 
1,371,758 


1,731,311 


3,304,878 
4,607,090 
5,814,474 


13,726,442 


9,322,103 
7,055,018 


16,377,121 


31,834,874 


1895 


327,930 
1,460,514 


1,808,444 


3,285,984 
4,233,656 
5,488,219 


13,007,859 


9,869,837 
7,831,801 


17,701,638 


32,517,941 


Total area 




+ 


+ 


+ + + 


+ 


1 




1 


1907 


619,066 
1,872,936 


2,4192,002 


4,306,421 
5,997,626 
7,770,895 


18,074,942 


12,623,011 
9,916,531 


22,539,542 


43,106,486 


1895 


522,712 
1,893,202 


2,415,914 


4,142,071 
5,355,138 
7,182,522 


16,679,731 


13,157,201 
11,031,896 


24,189,097 


43,284,742 


Agricultural enterprises 




+ 


+ 


+ + 


+ 


1 1 


1 


+ 


1907 


2,084,060 
1,294,449 


3,378,509 


1,006,277 
652,798 
412,741 


2,071,816 


262,191 
23,566 


285,757 


5,736,082 


1895 


1,852,917 
1,383,450 


3,236,367 


1,016,318 
605,814 
392,990 


2,015,122 


281,767 
25,061 


306,828 


5,558,317 




as 
A 

*H 1 

CD US 


ca 
V 


2-5 
5-10 
10-20 


2-20 


20-100 
100 and > 


20 and > 
Total 



340 



V. I. LENIN 



Zahn, " 
Annalen 
1910 




Horses 


Horned 
cattle 


Sheep 


Pigs 
































p. 588 




1907 


1895 


1882 


1907 


1895 


1882 


1907 


1895 


1882 


1907 


1895 


1882 




< 2 ha 


2.! 


2-6 


1-8 


6-6 


8-3 


IO.4 


4-7 


4-6 


3-6 


23. 2 


25. 6 


24. 7 




2-5 ha 


6-9 


6. 7 


6-5 


15. 8 


I6.4 


I6.9 


4-o 


3.9 


3-5 


16. B 


17. 2 


17. 6 




5-20 " 


37. 9 


34. 1 


34. 2 


39. 4 


36. 5 


35. 7 


16. 2 


14. 8 


12.7 


33. 6 


31.Q 


31-4 




20-100 " 


34. 4 


37. 3 


38. 6 


26. 6 


27. 3 


27. 0 


26.4 


27. 8 


26. 0 


19.4 


19. 6 


20. 6 




> 100 " 


18. 7 


19. 3 


18. 9 


11. 6 


*-6 


lO.o 


49.0 


49.Q 


54. 2 


^•3 


6-6 


5.7 




2 


100 


100 


100 


100 
Pe 


100 
r 10( 


100 
) ha 


100 
of fa 


100 
rmla 


100 
nd 


100 


100 


100 




< 2 ha 


4-1 


4-9 


3-i 


76. 0 


^•3 


88.4 


24-0 


31.4 


41. 2 


235. 2 


191.7 


114.4 




2-5 ha 


7-3 


6. 9 


6. 4 


95. 4 


85. 3 


81-8 


lO.g 


14.g 


22. 8 


94-0 


71-2 


46. 6 




5-20 " 


12. 7 




11. 6 


75. 5 


64.4 


60. 2 


13. 9 


19.3 


29.4 


60. 8 


43.3 


28. 9 




20-100 " 


12-9 


12. 7 


12. 1 


56. 9 


47.4 


42.4 


25. 0 


35-5 


55-5 


39. 2 


26. 9 


17-5 




0 ha and > 


9. 2 


8-3 


7-5 


33.0 


25.Q 


19-8 


62. 0 


78. 7 


147.1 


19. 6 


U-3 


6. 2 




2 


ll.o 


IO.4 


9-8 


62. 7 


52.4 


48. 5 


28.Q 


38. 7 


66.3 


59.3 


41.7 


26. 5 





MATERIAL ON 



THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



341 



Goats 


1907 


1895 


1882 


73. 8 


80-0 


80. 6 




9-5 


9-2 


H-8 


8.! 


7-9 


2. 7 


2.! 


2. t 


0-2 


0-2 




100 


100 


100 


155. 8 


137. 4 


108. 2 


12. 7 


9. 0 


7-1 


4-1 


2-6 


2.! 


1-1 


0. 7 


0-5 


0-1 


0-i 


0-i 


U-5 


9-5 


7-7 



Zahn, p. 593 

Forced sales per 10,000 
agricultural enterprises 
(Bavaria) 
(1903-1907) 



< 2 ha 
2-5 
5-10 
10-20 
20-50 
50-100 
100 and 5 



41. 
39. 
35. 



32. 9 
46. 3 
102. 4 
193. 9 



39. 



Odd fact: 

reduction in the number of 
cows since 1882!! Possibly 
not comparable data 

1882: 





cows 


pigs 


< 2 ares 


2,405 


11,908 


2-5 ares 


8,164 


41,524 


5-20 ares 


64,527 


258,184 


20 ares-1 ha 


565,230 


1,027,664 


1-2 


937,158 


744,402 






2,083,682 


2-5 


2,385,617 


1,487,852 


5-10 


2,133,423 


1,307,490 


10-20 


2,267,912 


1,339,383 






4,134,725 


20-50 


2,528,533 


1,383,768 


50-100 


728,778 


348,797 






1,732,565 


100-200 


313,957 


136,012 


200-500 


455,384 


204,181 


500-1,000 


249,831 


116,865 


1,000 and > 


48,607 


23,236 






480,294 


2 


= 12,689,526 


8,431,266 



342 



V. I. LENIN 





1 


2 


3 


4 




See 
p. 45* 




Population by main occupation of those gainfully 
employed 




gainfully 
employed 


household 
servants 
living in 


members of 

family 
without main 
occupation 


total number 
of persons 
in this 
category 
(1-3) 




2 [total] 
Aim [men] 
w [women] 


2,295,210 
1,997,419 
297,791 


118,677 
3,861 
114,816 


4,723,729 
1,902,489 
2,821,240 


7,137,616 
3,903,769 
3,233,847 




A 2 j 


137,710 
112,367 
25,343 


15,731 
206 
15,525 


282,476 
112,442 
170,034 


435,917 
225,015 
210,902 




A 3 \ 


17,416 
14,960 
2,456 


5,529 
102 
5,427 


21,475 
7,197 
14,278 


44,420 
22,259 
22,161 




B 1 < 


44,368 
30,845 
13,523 


3,272 
30 
3,242 


19,671 
6,306 
13,365 


67,311 
37,181 
30,130 




B 2 \ 


28,722 
26,468 
2,254 


428 
428 


67,834 
25,490 
42,344 


96,984 
51,958 
45,026 




B 3 -I 


3,476 
3,257 
219 


390 
2 

388 


2,937 
820 
2,117 


6,803 
4,079 
2,724 







See p. 370. ~ Ed. 

Columns 7 and 8 are here reversed, as in the original. See Lenin's 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



343 





5 


6 


g * * 


7** 


9 




of the gainfully 
employed (1) 


in general 


of the gain- 
fully employ- 

CU \±J Willi 

side line (as 
an occupa- 
tion) notably 
in agricul- 
ture 


total number 

U 1 pel nU lib 

engaged in 
respective 
occupation 
(1+8) 




side line 


with side 

lines 
(auxiliary 
employment) 
in general 


engaged in 
side line, as 
an occupation, 

bpcLlllcll 111 

preceding 
column 




1,779,464 


515,746 


1,334,235 


48,749 


3,629,445 




1,508,547 


488,872 


1,221,485 


42,686 


3,218,904 




270,917 


26,874 


112,750 


6,063 


410,541 




107,089 


30,621 


613,701 


7,590 


751,411 




84,176 


28,191 


570,865 


6,520 


683,232 




22,913 


2,430 


42,836 


1,070 


68,179 




15,130 


2,286 


326,049 


676 


343,465 




12,899 


2,061 


303,203 


568 


318,163 




2,231 


225 


22,846 


108 


25,302 




42,547 


1,821 


1,001 


924 


45,369 




29,213 


1,632 


769 


830 


31,614 




13,334 


189 


232 


94 


13,775 




20,074 


8,648 


1,064 


7,927 


29,786 




17,871 


8,597 


997 


7,893 


27,465 




2,203 


51 


67 


34 


2,321 




3,109 


367 


229 


169 


3,705 




3,894 


363 


221 


167 


3,478 




215 


4 


8 


2 


227 



[ctd on next page] 



remarks on p. 370 — Ed. 



344 



V. I. LENIN 





1 


2 


3 


4 




Population by main occupation of those gainfully 
employed 




gainfully 
employed 


household 
servants 
living in 


members of 

family 
without main 
occupation 


total number 
of persons 
in this 
category 
(1-3) 




C 1 \ 


3,883,034 
1,051,057 
2,831,977 


123 
123 


94,889 
37,772 
57,117 


3,978,046 
1,088,829 
2,889,217 




C 2 \ 


1,332,717 
707,538 
625,179 


82 
82 


24,428 
9,697 
14,731 


1,357,227 
717,235 
639,992 




C 3 \ 


259,390 
213,717 
45,673 


776 
776 


572,324 
216,958 
355,366 


832,490 
430,675 
401,815 




C 4 \ 


236,534 
219,220 
17,314 


1,248 
1,248 


690,610 
276,140 
414,470 


928,392 
495,360 
433,032 




C 5 j 


1,343,225 
646,236 
696,989 


1,231 
1,231 


691,009 
265,412 
425,597 


2,035,465 
911,648 
1,123,817 




Total J 
IA { 


9,581,802 
5,023,084 
4,558,718 


147,487 
4,201 
143,286 


7,191,382 
2,860,723 
4,330,659 


16,920,671 
7,888,008 
9,032,663 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



345 





5 


6 


8 


7 


9 




of the gainfully 
employed (1) 


in general 


of the gain- 
fully employ- 

CU \±J Willi 

side line (as 
an occupa- 
tion) notably 
in agricul- 
ture 


total number 

U 1 pel nU lib 

engaged in 
respective 
occupation 
(1+8) 




side line 


with side 

lines 
(auxiliary 
employment) 
in general 


engaged in 
side line, as 
an occupation, 

bpcLlllcll 111 

preceding 
column 




3,741,662 


141,372 


2,951,361 


1,239 


6,834,395 




980,807 


70,250 


589,229 


762 


1,640,286 




2,760,855 


71,122 


2,362,132 


477 


5,194,109 




1,319,072 


13,645 


79,539 


617 


1,412,256 




697,078 


10,460 


21,914 


599 


729,452 




621,994 


3,185 


57,625 


18 


682,804 




19,108 


240,282 


63,962 


238,219 


323,352 




13,104 


200,613 


55,512 


198,884 


269,229 




6,004 


39,669 


8,450 


39,335 


54,123 




4,670 


231,864 


6,040 


231,719 


242,574 




4,001 


215,219 


5,267 


215,096 


224,487 




669 


16,645 


773 


16,623 


18,087 




1,317,664 


25,561 


116,403 


936 


1,459,628 




632,159 


14,077 


52,448 


504 


698,684 




685,505 


11,484 


63,955 


432 


760,944 




8,369,589 


1,212,213 


5,493,584 


538,765 


15,075,386 




3,982,749 


1,040,335 


2,821,910 


474,509 


7,844,994 




4,386,840 


171,878 


2,671,674 


64,256 


7,230,392 



346 



V. I. LENIN 



There seems to be a mistake here.* 

Distribution (in thousands) adopted 

in The Agrarian Question, p. 244 111 

1882 1895 1907 

a) 2,253 2,522 2,450 

+ 

c 1) 1,935 1,899 3,883 

- + 

I (a+c 1) 4,188 4,421 6,333 

+ + 



II c 3) 866 383 259 



I+II 5,054 4,804 6,592 

- + 

b) 47 77 76 

c 2) 1,589 1,719 1,333 

c 4 and c 5) 1,374 1,445 1,580 



III(b + c 2 + c 4 + c 5) 3,010 3,241 2,989 

+ 

Total 8,064 8,045 9,581 

- + 

Also collateral employment 

1882 1895 1907 

a) 2,120 2,160 2,274 
c 1) 664 1,061 2,951 
c 2) 9 60 80 

b) 2 
c 3) 64 

c 4-5) 122 

351 297 188 



Total 3,144 3,578 5,493 



* This is a later remark; it applies to the two places of the table 
Lenin subsequently corrected. — Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



347 



co 

«S 2 * IS 

a 



* 

LO 



S 

o 



=4H 

o 

Pi 
o 

f3 
^3 



o 



+ 

CO. 

+ 

8 



o r 



h S3 

CCJ CIS 

3 cu - 

CO Q> 



03 0) as 

r» >1 ® 



CD * g.S 
55 -H guj 



CD tO CO 
O TJH O 

nqq 

CO co" 

CN ir- co 

No ^ 
^ o"co" 



co cn as 

MDO 

q cn 
co" co co" 

CN CO CD 



CO CO 
CO 00 OS 
CN t— ^LO 

2~S! ^ 
o 22 CD 

CN ^IcD 
tH<33 -J 



O OS xj< 
CD OS O 
O0 ^ CO^ 

cn" of t— " 
COON 
CD 



CD 00 CO 
CO CO 

co"co"S2 
cn y as 



CD CO 

co oo as 

C- 00 _J" 
C~ lO 



lO (N lO 
lOlOt- 
(O H CO 

co" ^ch" t-h" 

oo o 

t — I CO 



CN C~ CO 

co r; t- 

CD OS © 

as" cm 10 
o cjs CO 

lO CD 



as 10 cn 

H CO 

^ as^ as 
co" o" t- 
CO o 

H 0O 

cn" cn" 



CO LO CO 

t~- T — I t~~ 

as co as, 
cd" cd" 

o CO 
CN^as^ 



«S A 

cp CM Ch 
CtJ 

a 



O 

CM 




cd 



CD . 



5P«s 2 S g S 



tffl 



CO 



° « 
0 



L— LO 
CN CD CN 

t— ^ cn q 

C-" r-T CSl" 
"* S CN 
rH CN »H 



xj< t- LO 

O CO CD 
CD C^tH 
Cxf co" co" 

CN LO 



co as 
co oo co 



CO ^H,tf3 

co"cn" 



A 

CN O A 
« CN 0 

^ ee) 

t§ ° 
1— ' CN 



o ? 

=4-1 

O 

03 
CD 



=-1—1 „ 

o - 
03 „ 

O o 

o o 

CM tH 
CM CO 











tH 


















o 






a 




o 

CM 






CM 






an 




Pi 














A 










Si 


-a 




CD 


Pi 




T3 


03 




fod 


o 




CM 




for 


than 










03 


m 




CD 

f-H 






CD 


o 




CJ 


ad 




CD 


CD 






Pi 




mo 


of r 




CD 


pj 




> 






03 


'o3 






ag 






ch 










a 




Pi 






03 






o3 




O 






(M 


13 




-i^> 
03 


Pi 


tock. 




03 






cc 


cc 


m 


CD 
_> 








Pi 


CD 




_o 


CD 




'co 


> 


CJ 


J3 


o3 


pi 


CJ 


Jl 


B 


Pi 






O 


O 


cc 


CJ 


(M 
i 


03 


CD 


(M 






cc 


Th 


nd 


me 




<! 





348 



V. I. LENIN 



Farms in terms of hired labour 


(Total 
labour 
per farm 


Number 
of farms 


Total 
labour 




Almost without hired labour 
Small minority of hired labour 
Majority of hired labour 


(1-3) 
(4-5) 
(6 and >) 


3,689,289 
856,156 
466,095 


6,539,697 
3,730,716 
4,899,136 




(p. 41)* Total 
Proletarian and small peasant 
Middle peasant 
Big peasant and capitalist 


(Under 5 ha) 
^ iu na^ 
( > 10 ha) 


5,012,140 
4,384,786 

CCO 7Q Q 

ooz, / y o 
698,498 


15,169,549 
7,266,929 

5,411,283 




Total 




5,736,082 


15,169,549 





*) Estimated from % of labour given on p. 41* for the 



All the details from Wolff, Les Engrais,** Paris, 1887. 

Note sources estimating the quantity of manure: G a r o I a, 
S. 1 1 40 9), pages 121-124. Stoeckhardt's method: 
multiplied by 1. 3 (horses), 2. 3 (cows), 1. 2 (sheep), 2. 5 (pigs). 

idem in Kraft's Agricultural Dictionary 8°. S. 10575 

/. Fritsch, Les Engrais (Paris 1909?; Bibliotheque 
1/2 dry matter (Trockensubstanz) of feed + litter [Einstreu] 
the quantity of litter and feed, weighed in a dry state], 
should be multiplied by 1. 3 kg for horse; 1. 5 for draught ox; 
means that the methods of Heuze and Stoeckhardt are similar.] 



*See p. 366.— Ed. 
* Fertilisers.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 349 





Approximate*) 
figure 


Per farm 


Approx- 
imate*) 
number 
of 

machines 


Agric. 

ma- 
chines 
agric. 
farm 


Farmland 
ha 


Total 
livestock 
in terms 
of big cattle 


labour 


land 


live- 
stock 




5,706,798 
7,050,002 
19,078,074 


7,263,522 
7,515,336 
14,601,747 


1.7 
4.3 
10.5 


1.5 
8.2 
40.1 


1.9 
8.7 
31.3 


167,699 
547,084 
1,093,924 


0-05 

0-6 

2-3 




31,834,874 
5,036,189 
4,607,090 

22,191,595 


29,380,405 
6,992,778 
5,141,657 

17,245,970 


3.0 


6.3 


5.8 


l,oUo, / 0 / 

210,179 
398,495 
1,200,033 


0-36 


31,834,87 


29,380,405 


1,808,707 



three categories by group. 



Bibliotheque Nationale 8°. S. 9558, page 100 et seq. 

Engrais (Paris 1903.— At the Bibliotheque Nationale, 8°. 
fodder (weight of the dry feed substance) + litter (litter straw) 



Nationale: 8°. S. 13195), p. 98 [according to Wolff: 
also in dry state. 2X4. According to other writers, double 
According to M. H e u z e, S of litter and feed (in dry state) 
2. 3 for cows; 2. 5 for pigs; 1. 2 for sheep. (Average 1. 8 ). [This 



350 



V. I. LENIN 



Female and child labour 

(vertical 1) men 
order: 2) women 
3) total). 

(a) = temporary workers as % of total labour 



Permanent labour (workers) 





family 


hired 


total 






0/ 
10 


of the 

under 
14 yrs 


m 

% 




0/ 


of the 

under 
14 yrs 


m 

% 




70 


of the 

under 
14 yrs 


m 

% 


Under 0. 5 ha 


504,658 
815,475 




3,205 


0. 6 


24,315 
38,541 




436 




325,043 
528,973 

OCA A -1 

854,01b 




5,641 


0. 7 




0. 5 -2 ha 


766,435 

A 00*7 on A 

1,ZZ /,994 




lb,zlo 




36,260 
bb,oo4 




1,364 


2. 3 


492,153 
802,695 

•f O fl -1 Q A Q 

l,zyi,o4o 




AH CTfl 

1 1,0 /9 


1-4 




2-5 ha 


994,120 
-i n a q inn 




33,115 


L 7 


72,217 
a o n n o -i 




0,z /9 


4 -o 


1,012,783 

1,066,337 
0 n 7n -ion 

z,0 /y,izu 




0 q 0 n A 






5-10 ha 


777,286 
1,673,305 




30,475 


1-8 


115,670 
221,326 




9,358 


4-2 


1,001,675 
892,956 
1,894,631 




39,833 


2-1 




10-20 ha 


527,050 
1,193,515 




21,554 


1-8 


198,735 
412,702 




14,394 


3-5 


880,432 
725,785 
1,606,217 




35,948 


2-2 




20-100 ha 


289,099 
717,351 




10,007 


1.4 


344,910 
835,728 




17,843 


2-1 


919,070 
634,009 
1,553,079 




27,850 


1-7 




100 ha and > 


6,968 
34,139 




243 


o. v 


284,847 
799,773 




7,990 


0-9 


542,097 
291,815 
833,912 




8,233 


0-9 




incl. 

200 ha and > 






Total 


3,865,616 
7,609,978 




116,814 


1-5 


1,076,954 
2,505,845 




56,664 


2-3 


5,173,253 
4,942,570 
10,115,823 




173,478 


I.7 




Under 2 ha 




























2-20 




























20 and > 





























MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



351 



in agriculture 



Temporary labour (workers) 





family 


hired total 




(a) 

% 


of the 

under 
14 yrs 


m 

% 




(a) 

/o 


of the 

under 
14 yrs 


m 

% 




(a) 

/o 


of the 

under 
14 yrs 


m 

% 




888,204 

A f\ A A r A A 

1,011,510 


55 


37,062 


3. 6 


74,787 

a a o n a a 

148,781 


79 


1,301 


0. 8 


962,991 

A A f* A A A 4 

l,lb0,291 


58 


O O O A O 

38,3b3 


3 -3 




612,088 

H(\p nop 
/9b,9zb 


39 


/Z,b03 


9 -l 


122,112 
Z4b,9 11 


HQ 
10 


Z, /ob 


1 -1 


734,200 
l,U4o,oy / 


45 


Q rr ft 


"•2 




376,646 
554,3b / 


0 o 

zz 


ft 1 ft ft A 

91,994 


16. 5 


140,269 

O Q ft Q ft ft 

Zo0,390 


bo 


4,713 




516,915 
oo4, ID 1 


Oft 

Z9 


ftc Hf\n 
9b, /0 / 


11. 5 




221,400 
330,328 


11 


73,891 


22. 4 


137,098 
266,378 


54 


6,035 


2-3 


358,498 
596,706 


24 


79,926 


13. 4 




137,581 
199,139 


14 


48,687 


24. 4 


156,150 
299,165 


42 


9,447 


Q , 
6 -l 


293,731 
4Q& 304 


23 


58 134 


11 „ 
11. g 




82,948 
115,268 


14 


22,939 


19. 9 


212,578 
401,086 


32 


20,268 


5. 0 


A A 1" V A A 

295,526 
516,354 


25 


43,207 


8-3 




3,052 
4,092 


11 


222 


5. t 


214,238 
399,325 


33 


36,241 


9-0 


217,290 
403,417 


32 


36,463 


9. 0 
















2,321,919 
3,011,630 


29 


347,398 


11. 2 


1,057,232 
2,042,096 


45 


80,761 


3-9 


3,379,151 
5,053,726 


33 


428,158 


8. 4 

















































































[ctd on next page] 



352 



V. I. LENIN 



[ctd] 



All labour together 





family 


hired 


total 




0/ 
10 


of the 

under 
14 yrs 


m 

/o 




10 


of the 

under 
14 yrs 


m 

/o 




0/ 
10 


of the 

under 
14 yrs 


m 

% 


Under 0. 5 ha 


1,392,862 
1,826,985 




42,267 


2-3 


99,102 
187,322 




1,737 


0-9 


1,491,964 
2,014,307 




44,004 


2- 2 


O.5-2 ha 


1,378,523 
2,024,920 




88,818 


4-4 


158,372 
313,825 




4,120 


1-8 


1,536,895 
2,338,745 




92,938 


3-9 


2-5 ha 


1,370,766 
2,502,566 




125,109 


4-9 


212,486 
411,311 




9,992 


2-4 


1,536,895 
2,913,877 




135,101 


4-6 


5-10 ha 


998,686 
2,003,633 




104,366 


5. 2 


252,758 
487,704 




15,393 


3.! 


1,251,454 
2,491,337 




119,759 


4-8 


10-20 ha 


664,631 
1,392,654 




70,241 


5. 0 


354,885 
711,867 




23,841 


3-3 


1,019,516 
2,104,521 




94,082 


4-5 




372,047 
832,619 




32,946 


3-9 


557,488 
1,236,814 




38,111 


3.! 


929,535 
2,069,433 




71,057 


3.! 


1UU na and > 


10,020 
38,231 




465 


1-2 


499,085 
1,199,098 




44,231 


3-7 


509,105 
1,237,329 




44,696 


3-6 


incl. 

200 ha and > 


























Total 


6,187,535 
10,621,608 




464,212 


4-4 


2,134,186 
4,547,941 




137,425 


3-o 


8,321,721 
15,169,549 




601,637 


3-9 


Under 2 ha 


2,771,385 
3,851,905 








257,474 
501,147 








4,353,052 








2-20 


3,034,083 
5,898,853 








820,139 
1,610,882 








7,509,735 








20 and > 


382,067 
870,850 








1,056,573 
2,435,912 








3,306,762 









MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



353 



5,3 | 

II w.SP 

II o 



CI -H rH 

CO CO ^"^^ 



O O CO OS lo 



03 CO (M CO 



tH t— I t— I CO C£> 

o o o o ^ 



CO C£> CO CO < 



II m .?r 

II 



O03 00l>0 
t"— CO "^t 1 Cr~ 
C- CO CM 

CS 0"S rH t CO 



tH O QO tH CO 



IO CM Ol m lO 



O O O O CO 



IO IO H Ol 02 



OS 
-OS 

e ft 
e 



-a - 



E A 



UO Ol CM LO tH 
no It- 00 00 
COQO Cr ~„ QO „ 

o"co <x> ^ ^ 

CM CO CO "3 
(MCMCN 



O CO QO QO 
C— lq C- CO 



CO CO CO rH O 



CO t- IT- LQ CO 



H -H rH CO O 

0000^ 



ai co co co 10 



t— CO CO O 1 

co cn 00 co_ 
CO so to 

CO SO CO CO 



CO C™ CO CO LQ 



O O CO QO 

CNCMCNOOC: 



"<t as co 

Qi CM CO 



CO CO CO C£> t— I 

O O O -<H CO 



ai o ^ 



00 



0 



H CO CO CO 



as co o as t— 1 

O ^ CO CO CO 



CN t~ CO ' 



o o o o ^ 



lo as as co tH 



(NO w 

cn 10 o o 

a mo 



o 
EH 



08 „ 

-a - 



TjNinoo 
13 



o 
EH 



354 



V. I. LENIN 




El 5 Ch 

* s * 

2 S 2 

CD T 1 * CD 
ft 0> ft 

^ '-3 bo 

co H O 

CN LO (N 

CD CD CD 

rU rU 



CCS 

o 



CD 

LO 



o 

OS 



cS 
tSJ 



CO C— 


ca o 








o 


CD 

o 






' 


^ I 


. 1 


CD 






pC| 


CD 




Pi 




f3 


o 


|-s 


CD 




bo 


Pi 


03 


o 






Pi 


CD 


CD 




u 


o3 


5h 




CD 


CO 


ft 



* 

a 



o3 



CD 
ft 

CD 

Pi 



CD 
fH 
o3 

O 

CO 
CD 
CO 

'£ 
ft 

fH 

CD 

Pi 

0 PI 

r— i o 
03 -rt 

f3 



u 

'rH 

bo 
o3 



o3 
ft 
E3 
o 
u 
o 



CO LO CN1 



CO CN1 CO 



OS OS OS 



CD 


c- 


CO 


CD 




CO 


O 




c- 


T — 1 


GO 


CO 


CM 


CO 




o 


OO 


C- 


OS 


LO 


vH 


o 




co" 


co 


cT 


co" 


os" 


CO 


CD 


CO 


o 


IT- 


CM 


OS 




lO 


c— 


os 


CM 




cS 














CO 


CO 


o 


■SO 


LO 


CO 




CO 


T — 1 


CM 


CD 


CD 


CM 


-rH 




OS 


OS 


OS 





dJ CO Oi 

"B 03 
j= c> CD 



°£ 03 — r 

O hO 

CD t > i TrH CD 
Pi- 0 p, LO 

^ +* r^H • 

O Pi 03 ft 

73 v > 



T3 



[- 

O 
05 



tH 

CD 
Pi 
f3 
1-3 

Pi 
O 

CO 

rH 

CD 

o 
o 

rH 

CD 

a 

f3 

Pi 

o 

CD 



5 ° 
1) p! 

^ co 



f-H 

o3 
ft 



o 
EH 



M 

o 
o 

Xi 
CD " 

-U o 

O CD 

Pi .. 
oo 

co CD 
£lo g 

ft s 



GO 
CO 



OS 



ft Pi S 
cjj 03 CD 



* +3 



^5 
I 

CO 
CO 



CD 
CD 

CO 

* 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



355 



Owners of agricultural enterprises who were not inde- 
pendent farmers by main occupation 



Volume 211. 
p. 89 
("Die berufliche 

und soziale 
Gliederung") 112 


in 

industry 


employed 

in commu- 
nications 


in trade 
and inn- 
keeping 


hired 
labour, 
casual 

work 


Total 


Total 


1907 
1895 


1,127,996 
790,950 


145,877 
101,781 


19,746 
13,593 


21,686 
36,737 




Under O.5 
ha 


1907 
1895 


752,278 
514,840 


104,011 
67,632 


15,741 
10,493 


17,351 
29,078 




0. 5 -2 ha 


1907 
1895 


305,102 
227,928 


32,454 
27,250 


3,299 
2,513 


3,780 
6,910 




2-5 ha 


1907 
1895 


65,004 
44,479 


8,286 
6,146 


594 
472 


501 
685 




5 ha and 
over 


1907 
1895 


5,612 
3,703 


1,126 
753 


112 
115 


54 
64 





In view of the very confusing nature of German occu- 
pations statistics, it is important to make the following 
clear and simple comparison for C 1 (members of families), 
according to Zahn (p. 4 8 6), where those in the given oc- 
cupation are the "gainfully employed, including members 
of their families without any occupation and their domes- 
tic servants". 





in the occupation 






1882 


1907 


increase 


Independents (A in- 
cluding A 1, C 1) . . 

Workers (Class A 1, C 1) 


20,586,372 
829,865 
18,814,615 


20,881,542 
3,067,649 
28,396,761 


295,170 
2,237,784 
9,998,383 


Total . . . 


39,814,615 


52,345,952 


12,531,337 



millions 



356 



V. I. LENIN 



Data on live 





Straw 


Oats, fodder grasses and hay 


[3+Y + 8 


a 

7 cereals*) 
ha 


P 
oats 


Y 

fodder 
grasses 


8 

meadow 


Under 0. 5 ha 


57,834 
7 


10,667 


8,139 
1 


29,370 
3 


48,176 
5 




0. 5 - 2 ha 


•1 0 0 ceo 

482,558 
25 


105,499 


80,516 
4 


283,002 
14 


469,017 
24 




2- 5 


1,399,976 
33 


371,046 


262,426 
5 


800,045 
19 


1,433,517 
34 




c •in 

0- 10 


2,131,422 
41 


624,989 


381,869 
7 


1,056,821 
20 


2,063,679 
40 




•in on 
1U- a) 


/,ol 1,1)0/ 

45 


848,223 


459,857 
8(1) 


1,257,998 
22(2) 


2,566,078 
44 




20- 100 


4,504,778 
59 


1,384,181 


720,375 
9(3) 


1,595,781 
21(4) 


3,700,337 
48 




100 and > 


3,360,177 
89 


865,713 


671,500 
18 


928,613 
25 


2,465,826 
65 




Total 


14,754,077 
50 


4,210,318 


2,584,682 
9 


5,951,630 
20 


12,746,630 
43 










Under 2 ha 






2-20 ha 






20 ha and 
over 







*) All the first 7, including oats and mixed cereals.* 
(i) 7. 9 ; (2) 21. 6 2 = 29. 5 
(3) 9. 4 ; (4) 20. 8 Z = 30. 2 



See pp. 324-25.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



357 



stock feed [bottom = p e r 100 head of 

total livestock in terms of big 
cattle] 





Pastures 




Mixed cereals 
+ sugar- 
beet + pota- 
toes 


lotal area 
under feed 
[3 + Y + 8 
+ mixed 
cereals 


s 

field 
pastures 


fat 
pastures 


small 
pastures 




745 


535 


12,833 


15,113 
2 


169,028 


49,620 
6 




11,836 


12,069 


41,841 


£f C HAP 

bo, /4b 
3 


O E 7 O O 7 

00 /,»» / 


A Q A OOf 

25 




42,207 


42,027 


96,771 


181,005 
4 


518,215 


1,485,390 
35 




79,264 


77,783 


140,225 


6 


coo c o n 

583, o20 


2,145,obo 
41 




142,354 


128,227 


215,166 


A Q C 7/17 

8 


o4 /, /o9 


46 




492,910 


419,935 


357,443 


1,270,288 
16 


1,009,212 


3,973,865 
52 




315,073 


173,230 


196,013 


684,316 
18 


1,303,949 


2,820,386 
75 




1,084,389 


853,806 


1,061,292 


2,999,487 
10 


4,589,650 


13,648,658 
16 












534,446 






6,319,931 






6,794,251 



358 



V. I. LENIN 









In the tables columns 3 
and 4 are designated as 
they are here, but in 
the text Column 3 is 
called: landwirtschaftlich 
benutzte Flache 




1895: 


Agricultu- 
ral enter- 
prises 


Total area 


Total farmland 
(with vegetable 
gardens and 
vineyards) 


ploughland, 
meadow, pas- 
ture and other 
cultivated farm- 
land (without 
vegetable 
gardens and 


1A 1 Via 


ana o-rc 
D IO,Z10 




462,711 


430,351 


1-2 ha 


707,235 


1,275,786 


997,803 


947,796 


5-10 ha 


605,814 


5,355,138 


4,233,656 


4,168,205 


10-20 ha 


392,990 


7,182,522 


5,488,219 


5,436,867 


2 


5,558,317 


43,284,742 


32,517,941 


32,062,491 



Number of farms with 


Leased land per 


leased land per 100 


100 ha 


1895 


1882 


1895 


1882 


51-68 


49-94 


24-79 


27.71 


49-55 


44-79 


15-93 


14-61 


35-91 


31.41 


8.i 7 


7-25 


22.62 


19.Q8 


7-30 


7-09 


37-56 


36.77 


19-18 


22.39 


46-91 


44-02 


12-38 


12-88 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



359 



1895 



Farms with 


Of total land 








more 


less 








own land 


leased 
land 






own land 


leased 
land 




only 


only 


than half 


ha 


ha 








land 


leased 






Under 2 ha 


1,009,126 


891,107 


377,190 


463,510 


1,575,672 


598,851 


2-5 


443,268 


47,185 


95,745 


360,663 


3,364,418 


659,894 


5-10 


323,420 


12,194 


36,686 


197,422 


4,726,447 


550,978 


10-20 


261,101 


7,513 


14,256 


90,597 


6,626,528 


473,903 


5-20 


584,521 


19,707 


50,942 


288,019 


11,352,975 


1,024,881 


20- 100 


208,674 


9,969 


8,202 


45,558 


12,102,060 


960,200 


100 and > 


15,401 


4,991 


1,229 


3,193 


8,875,255 


2,116,215 


2 


2,260,990 


912,959 


533,308 


1,160,943 


37,270,380 


5,360,041 



As for other land, it is given in 1895 under 4 heads 
(Deputant, Dienst, common and share-cropping) which 
it is not worth while citing 





% 


% 


% 


% 


% 


% 


Under 2 


31-18 


25-68 


11-65 


14-32 


65-22 


24-79 


2-5 


43-62 


4-64 


9-42 


35-49 


81-23 


15-93 


5-20 


58 -52 


1-97 


5. 10 


28-84 


90-55 


8-17 


20-100 


74-06 


3-54 


2 -91 


16-17 


91-98 


7 -30 


100 and > 


61. 45 


19-92 


4-90 


12-74 


80-45 


19-18 


2 


40-68 


16-43 


9-59 


20-89 


86.^ 


12-38 



360 



V. I. LENIN 



C 22 
Inn-keeping, 
etc. 


^uapuadap 


CM CO 

c— 1 


CO 
CO 

oo 


CO LO 


:ruapuadapm 


41,971 
16,308 
12,715 
1,209 
14 


72,217 


8,872 
3,843 


C 11-21 
Transport and 
communications 


^uapuadap 


94,882 
6,146 
729 
24 


101,781 


LO 

LO C- 
CD 


:ruapuadapui 


23,539 
6,432 
2,818 
197 
8 


32,994 


2,132 
686 


C 1-10 
Trade 


^uapuadap 


OS OS LO 
m ^ 05 1 

<N 


12,757 


LO 

L— CM 


^uapuadapui 


105,018 
17,315 
7,519 
787 
43 


130,682 


5,541 
1,978 


B 

Industry 


^uapuadap 


742,768 
44,479 
3,588 
111 
4 


790,950 


3,252 
336 


^uapuadapui 


534,323 
121,263 
44,204 
4,320 
180 


704,290 


33,123 
11,081 


A 2-6 
Vegetable gar- 
dening, fisheries, 
etc. 


^uapuadap 


52,329 
10,602 
4,476 
194 
4 


67,605 


2,386 
2,090 


^uapuadapui 


24,163 
4,578 
2,286 
592 
132 


31,751 


1,567 
719 


A-1 
Agriculture 


^uapuadap 


689,523 
25,212 
2,066 
148 
88 


717,037 


1,822 
244 


^uapuadapui 


564,077 
733,813 
906,786 
270,931 
23,523 


2,499,130 


538,417 
368 369 


1895 


< 2 ha 
2-5 
5-20 
20-100 
100 and > 


5-10 
10-20 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



361 



A 1 agriculture 
dependent 


sj9jnoqB{ 
'sjgjnoqB; ABp 


613,596 
24 294 
1,807 


639,703 


1,667 
140 


SpUBq-UIJBJ 
9p3UI9I pUB 9p3UI 


57,039 
481 
54 


57,574 


LO OS 


-jadns 'sj93bubui 


18,888 
437 
205 
142 
88 


19,760 


O "O 

tH OS 


Details aboul 
independent 


^usuiA'cqduia 
AjBipisqns q^M 


147,094 
187 452 
138,346 
23,894 
5,537 


502,323 


94,000 
44,346 


^uauiA'cqduig 
A^BTpisqns ^noi^iM 


416,983 
546,361 
768,440 
247,037 
17,986 


1,996,807 


444,417 
324,023 


pgiji^uapran pue sjaq^Q 


314,780 
29,013 
11,443 
3,249 
1,065 


359,550 




saajnoqB{ pa-nn 


1,628,496 
87,596 
11,033 
482 
96 


1,727,703 




•o^9 'apej; 
'Aj^snpuj ui s^uapuadapuj 


704,851 
161 318 
67,256 
6,513 
245 


940,183 




sjauiJBj ^uapuadgpuj 


588,240 
738,391 
909,072 
271,523 
23,655 


2,530,881 




W 


3,236,367 
1,016,318 
998,804 
281,767 
25,061 


5,558,317 




uoi^Bdnoao jo S9dA^ Jaq^O 


314,780 
29,013 
11,443 
3,2491 
1,065 


359,550 


7,914 
3,529 


Q j9jnoqB{ pgjiq pnsBg 


35,988 
685 
64 


36,737 


LO ^ — 1 


1895 


< 2 ha 
2-5 
5-20 
20-100 
100 and > 




5-10 
10-20 



362 



V. I. LENIN 



CD 

o 

CD 

O 



o 
o 

O 



CS 



a 



■CD O 

t- o 

CN *H 



CO O O 

lo <— , o 



a^ 



S 

LO : 



00 ™ 
CN LO 



LO 

o 

cd ; 
co" 

CN , 



t— 

© ^ 



CO ■ 
00 1 



cd co 
o to 



CN 
co ; 
oo 



LO 

O id 
lo" 7 
CN O 



CO 

S s 

GO ,■ 
CN 10 



co i-J 
as 



co 

CN 



CD 

*H CM 

- cm 

LO ~ 

CO co 
CN 10 

co" 



LO 

CO 



CO 

io ■? ■? 

CN O O 


CO 

cd as 

CN co 
CD" T* 
00 

CN CN 
[-" 


CO 
t— 

oo ? ? 
fqLO^ 


o 

00" g 
« CO 


O 

00 f- 

oo" ? y 

01 [~ 00 
05 tH 


00 
OS 
CO 

00 

CN 

OS 


00 

CO CO 

- n in 


CO 
O 

CN g 

§> 




CO 


t— 
CD 

CO CO 

" N CI 
CD • • 
co co 00 

LO LO 


00 
CO 

°l ™ 

10 LO 

CN ra 
°°„ 


co" 


^h" 


1895 
1907: 


CN 



CD 
rQ 

s 

S5 



cu 

-si 

O ^ -ho 

^ '- ' 

R o 

• r-j • k) 

S-5 E 

o a >~ 

CJ -S CD 

< to O 



e 
a 



00 o 
CD O 
00 



o 
o 

Oi 
CN 

oo 
C-" 



c- 
CD 
TO 

co" 

CD 
CO 



LO 

CO 

cn 
o" 

CN 

t— 



o 

CN 

LO" 
CO 
CN 



o 

c— 
oo„ 

t-" 
o 

CO 



LO 

CO 



CD 



CN 
CO 



o 

»<» a? 

O^i CM 

CN °° CN 
C- 



t— 
CO 

00 -^p 
COCJ5 CO 

d on » 
CO °°„CN 
05 



LO 
t— 

O co as 

cjj CN CN 
CN t— CO 



00 
hOS 

H L0" f 
00 1 
CN ' 



Ldg, 

oo 



LO C- 
G5 O 
00 CT5 



^ —I 
CD "5 

as ca 

■B 1 

S ca 

CD in 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



363 



GO 

cd . 



co o "* o o 
E: o » o o 



o 



03 



CO 

^H 



CD 



co 
cm 

~CM 
O 



g id co 



O 



CO 
CO 

"* 

~ CO « CO CM 

CM S2 



C- o 
tH CD 
O, O <D to 
IN ? 1> ? ? 
CT5 CO CO 00 £j 
CM LO C\l CO 



CM 



cm 

o r- 

m ^ O t- 

r, lO - io o 

CM • CM • • 

00 tH 

CO Tj<" 



CO 

CO J-O) 

of ™ "O 
to th lo lo 



-a 

a 



Eh 



00 



TO 



CM 



CM 

00 
CO 



CM 



lo e'- 
en o 

00 CT5 



00 
00 



^3 h 

2; 



-tf LO 

cd'^T 
o lo 

05 CM 



o c- 

00 CO 

os o 
oo jh 

TjT CD 



t~ CO 
^H,*HH 

Vim" 
LO r- 

LO CO 



o o 

^H CM 



o 



Pi 
o3 

' 

ft 

O 
5h 
U 

'3 



C4-H 
O 

tc 
ft 
S3 
O 
?H 

be 

>> 

03 
CD 

rH 

CD 
+i 
03 
> 



S3 



i 03^ 

■■s.s S 



« o 

° ft 

e 

& ° 

^ d 

8 o 



3* * 

Sh H CD 

8l*>SS! 

P *^H 
ft 

f3 

03 CD 
CD 

03 



f3 

CJ 

CD T3 

i s 

CD CD 

-£3 h>j 

S 03 

+3 > 



CO r d _ 

S 9 & 



B-3 



O ™ 



Oh 
O 



-a 

a 

as <c 



3 
ft 



C2 



CD 



CO 

cf 

CD 



o 
o 



LO 
CT3 

of 
cm' 



CD 
CD 



CO 
CM 



o 

CM 
tH^ 

cm" 
o> 

05 



o 

CD 



CO 

Oi , 

CO fc. 

tH CD 

O :o 

CD 2 

tc S 

CD G 

Z B 

f3 O 

CD Jh 



CD 
00 
00 



CO" 

it- s 

-O oo 



e 



o 



0 



364 



V. I. LENIN 



Essay at compiling tables with 





Number 
of farms 


Workers (12.6.1907) 


Of them temporary workers 




total family hired 


total 


family 


hired 


Under 
0. 5 ha 


2,084,060 


2,014,307 1,826,985 187,322 


1,160,291 


1,011,510 


148,781 




O.5- 2 ha 


1,294,449 


2,338,745 2,024,920 313,825 


1,043,897 


796,926 


246,971 




2-5 ha 


1,006,277 


2,913,877 2,502,566 411,311 


834,757 


554,367 


280,390 




5-10 ha 


652,798 


2,491,337 2,003,633 487,704 


596,706 


330,328 


266,378 




10-20 ha 


412,741 


2,404,521 1,392,654 711,867 


498,304 


199,139 


299,165 




20-100 
ha 


262,191 


2,069,433 832,619 1,236,814 


516,354 


115,268 


401,086 




luu na 
and > 


00 zee 
Zo,ODb 


i,zo/,ozy oo,zoi i,iyy,uyo 


403 417 


4,092 


399 325 




Total 


5,736,082 


15,169,549 10,621,608 4,547,941 


5,053,726 


3,011,630 


2,042,096 




Groups 




Average per tarm (01 tnose 
classified by number of workers) 










< O.5 




I.3 1. 2 O.i 










u.5 4 




1.9 1.7 u.2 










2-5 




2.9 2.5 O.4 










5-10 




3.8 3.! 0. 7 










10-20 




5 1 3 a 1 7 










20-100 




7.9 3. 2 4.7 










100 
and > 




52. 5 l.g 50.9 










2 




3-o 2 -l 0> 9 










Under 
2 ha 


3,378,509 


4,358,052 3,851,905 501,147 
1,324,193 






395,752 




2-20 


2,071,816 


7,509,735 5,898,853 1,610,882 
3,655,513 






845,933 




20 and > 


285,757 


3,306,762 870,850 2,435,912 
1,868,122 






800,411 





in pencil = incl. men 



At the top of the table in the MS., there is a pencilled note: "2 farms = 
This remark of Lenin's, pencilled in the MS., applies to the lower figu 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



365 



bottom — number of men* 



more rational classifications: 





Maximum 
of 

workers 


of them 
tempo- 
rary 


Farms by total number of workers employed 


1-3 workers 


4-5 workers 


Number 
of 
farms 


Number 
of 

workers 


ditto 
maxi- 
mum 


Number 
of 
farms 


Number 

of 
workers 


ditto 
maxi- 
mum 




2,613,590 


748,065 


1,451,952 


1,909,576 
477,726 


2,352,229 


19,644 


82,823 
34,269 


93,014 




3,052,997 


961,223 


1,100,624 


1,890,699 
604,490 


2,477,627 


81,584 


346,013 
151,820 


396,563 




3,650,514 


1,017,027 


736,510 


1,692,687 
750,403 


2,218,214 


222,679 


948,215 
449,854 


1,107,537 




3,210,172 


985,213 


308,550 


799,896 
401,716 


1,153,062 


274,771 


1,190,772 
590,891 


1,466,802 




2,860,082 


1,054,726 


79,796 


215,288 
118400 


392,231 


200,753 


899 958 
467',410 


1,239,495 




2,875,384 


1,207,037 


11,714 


31,278 


75,589 


57,167 


262,202 

\ 7ctq 


441,452 




1,469,685 


631,681 


143 


273 
212 


3,056 


158 


733 
500 


2,377 




19,732,424 


6,604,971 


3,689,289 


6,539,697 
2,372,090 


8,672,008 


856,756 


3,730,716 
1,845,537 


4,747,240 










% 






% 












94. 8 






4.i 












80. 9 






14.8 












58-i 






32. r 

0 












32.! 






47. 8 












10-2 






42. 8 












1-5 






12. 6 












0-0 






O.i 
























5,666,587 




2,552,576 


3,800,275 


4,829,856 


101,228 


428,836 


489,577 




9,720,768 




1,124,856 


2,707,871 


3,763,507 


698,203 


3,038,945 


3,813,834 




4,345,069 




11,857 


31,857 


78,645 


57,325 


262,935 


443,829 



[ctd on next page] 



5,012,140" and "2 (maximum)=19, 507,799". —Ed. 

res in Column 2, in the first three lines at the bottom. — Ed. 



366 



V. I. LENIN 



[ctd] 

Farms by total number of workers employed 





6 workers and more 


Total farms by number of 
workers 


% of women in 
total number 
of workers 




num- 
ber 
farms 


number 
of 

workers 


ditto 
maxi- 
mum 


number 

of 
farms 


number 

of 
workers 


ditto 
maximum 


"3 

0 
4j 


a 


-a 


Under 
0. 5 ha 


2,504 


21,908 
10,348 


26,817 


1,474,100 


2,014,307 


2,472,060 


74.1 


76.2 


53.2 


O.5-2 ha 


12,924 


102,033 
45 540 


117,254 


1,195,132 


2,338,745 


2,991,444 


67.7 


68.1 


50.3 


2-5 ha 


35,669 


272,975 
130 3fi8 


310,602 


994,858 


2,913,877 


3,636,353 


54.4 


54.7 


51.6 


5-10 ha 


67,458 


500,669 
247,276 


586,402 


650,779 


2,491,337 


3,206,266 


50.2 


49.8 


51.9 


10-20 
ha 


131,391 


989,275 
499,495 


1,226,351 


411,940 


2,104,521 


2,858,077 


48.4 


46.2 


49.8 


20-100 
ha 


192,915 


1,775,953 
969,662 


2,357,151 


261,796 


2,069,433 


2,874,192 


44.8 


44.7 


45.1 


100 ha 
and > 


23,234 


1,236,323 
727,512 


1,463,974 


23,535 


1,237,329 


1,469,407 


41.0 


26.2 


41.6 


Total 


466,095 


4,899,136 
2,630,201 


6,088,551 


5,012,140 


15,169,549 
6,847,828 


19,507,779 


54.8 


58.2 


46.9 


Group 




% of workers to 2 of 
classified workers 


Average number of 
workers per farm 
















<0. 5 




1-1 


8.7 
















0.5-2 




4-3 


v-o 
















2-5 




9.4 


7.7 
















5-10 




20.4 


7.4 
















10-20 




47. 0 


7-5 
















20-100 




85. 9 


9. 2 
















100 
and > 




99.9 


53. 2 
















2 






IO.5 
















Under 
2 ha 


15,428 


123,941 


144,071 


2,669,232 


4,353,052 


5,463,504 








2-20 


234,518 


1,762,919 


2,123,355 


2,057,577 


7,509,735 


9,700,696 








20 
and ' 


216,149 


3,012,276 


3,821,125 


285,331 


3,306,762 


4,343,599 









* See p. 308.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



367 





(p. 2)* 
Subsidi- 
ary 
farms 


Total 
farms 


B A 1 
and B 

A 2-6 

inc 

0 

CD 

-a 

CD 

0 as 

1 1 (H 


B and 
C 

luding fan 
occup 

co 
0 00 

fl CD 

"a-S ® . 

& to _g 5 

CCS CCS 

0 0 ^" ?h 


PP- I?" 

marked 
in red 
pencil 

ners by mi 
ation 

CO 
Sh 
CP 

=> 
O 

CS 
CP 

s 


E. F. H. 

andK 

lin 

cots 2 
CP aeS 
CP S 

O CO M 

a cd t3 
H 0 3 


Under O.5 ha 


1,994,894 


2,084,060 


97,153 


363,810 


1,287,312 


335,785 


O.5-2 


925,225 


1,294,449 


377,762 


277,735 


535,480 


103,472 


2-5 


287,372 


1,006,227 


723,263 


151,669 


104,251 


27,094 


5-10 


63,532 


652,798 


590,416 


46,246 


9,918 


6,218 


10-20 


21,037 


412,741 


391,769 


14,918 


3,169 


2,885 


20-100 


7,530 


262,191 


254,288 


5,293 


583 


2,027 


100 and > 


456 


23,566 


22,772 


279 


154 


361 


Total 


3,300,046 


5,736,082 


2,457,423 


859,950 


1,940,867 


477,842 
















Under 2 ha 


2,920,119 


3,378,509 


474,915 




1,882,792 




2-20 


371,941 


2,071,816 


1,705,448 




117,338 




20 and > 


7,986 


285,757 


277,060 




737 





[ctd on next page] 



*See p. 300.— Ed. 
*See pp. 320-23.— Ed. 



368 



V. I. LENIN 



[ctd] 

Use of agricultural machines, 
(below: per 100 farms) 









Number of machines owned 




(p. 21)* Total live- 
stock in terms of big 
cattle 


Number of c as e s 
of farms linked with 
industries (p. 12)* * 


(% of farms) 
Number of 
farms using 
machines in 
general 


Total 
of A 


All except hand 
threshers and 
centrifuges 


(others) 


Total 


Number of 
cases of 
use of all 
types of 
machines 


Hand 
threshers 


Milk 
separa- 
tors 


Under 
0. 5 ha 


18,466 

0 n % 
U.g/o 


20,660 


457 


444 


684 


1,585 
0 , 




826,963 


2,663 


0. 5 -2 


114,986 

O.g/o 


129,163 


2,676 


10,405 


10,550 


23,631 
L -l 




1,922,138 


10,110 


2-5 


325,665 

32 . g% 


379,343 


15,338 


116,297 


53,328 


184,963 
18. 3 




4,243,647 


24,077 


5-10 


419,170 
64. 2 % 


567,766 


65,102 


250,490 


82,903 


398,495 
61. 4 




5,141,657 


23,732 


10-20 


353,366 
8 5. 6 % 


635,934 


176,900 


253,227 


92,564 


522,691 
126. 6 




5,819,122 


17,855 


20-100 


243,365 
92. 8 % 


602,464 


282,430 


187,317 


78,556 


548,303 
209-4 




7,662,750 


11,920 


100 
and > 


22,957 
9 7. 4 % 


89,273 


112,396 


9,746 


6,897 


129,039 
547-5 




3,764,098 


7,535 


Total 


1,497,975 
26.!% 


2,424,603 
? 543 


655,299 


827,926 


325,482 


1,808,707 
31-5 




29,380,405 


97,872 






















Under 
2 ha 


133,452 










25,216 




2,749,131 


12,773 


2-20 


1,098,201 










1,106,148 




15,204,426 


65,664 


20 and > 


266,322 










677,342 




11,426,848 


19,455 



*See p. 338.— Ed. 
* See pp. 318-19.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



369 



















CO 




CD 




Ch 




£3 




1-3 




M-H 




o 




CO 




rH 
r-> 




03 








CD 




o 


CO 


, , 


Pi 


rH 


o 


rH 
1— ' 


o 








CD 
-r^ 


CD 


O 


"C 


Pi 


be 




<; 






CD 




03 




• ^ 


3 




CD 


■ka 


CD 


CO 


CO 




co 




ail 








CD 
















Pi 




03 


r— 1 




1— 1 


CO 


1— 1 




1— 1 

X 


th 












rH 




o 


Vo 




CO 




o 




■ K> 

■ka 




CO 








■ka 




Q 




-ka 




CQ 




C 








• ^ 








CO 













(J 



uo 

CNJ 



CO 
CO 

cnT 

OS 



AjosiAjgdns (p 



CO 
LO 



S99A0{dlU9 (9 



OS 
CNJ 



sjgquraui 

^n raB J (q 



Cj 

OS* 
CO 
CO 



CO 


LO 




LO 








o 


LO 


o 






lo 


OS 


I— 


CO 






LO 


tH* 


lo 


■>** 






CO 


o 




00 






CN 




t— 


CO 












T-T 






LO 




t— 






CO 


CO 


CO 


CD 


■* 


■* 


CO 




o 


CO 


CO 


CO 


cs 














CO* 


»■* 


cnT 


M<* 


CO* 


LO 




CN) 


CO 


lo 




CN 


CO 




CO 


OS 




CO 



CD 
CM 



SJ9UM0 (B 



02 

lo 



CNJ 



CNJ 
00 
CO 
CO* 

?^ 



CO 

as 



CD 
CN 

CO* 

CO 



CO 
CO 



LO 



CO 
CN 



■«C* 

o 



LO 






CD 


OS 




CD 


CN 


00 


CD* 


CO* 


LO 


O 


CN 


CN 


L— 


-rH 


CO 



i? 




o 


CO 


os 


T — 1 




CO 


CO 


CN 


os 


o 




CO 


CN 


o 


OS 


[ — 




LO 


o 


OS 


o 


a 




oo 


CO 


T — 1 


os 


CN 






CO 


CN) 


CO 


C3 

QQ 

>,s 


S £ Sf-g 


i- 




[ ^ 


os 


LO 


[ - 




CO 






CD CS CS S 




CO 


CN 






CN 


OS 


CN 








co^ 




CN 


CO 


LO 


CN 








rel 

far: 






























[- 


CO 


CO 


OS 


LO 




CN) 


CO 


3 


^ rn -H bo 

a S-S g 








o 


CO 


TH 


CD 


tH 


CO 


o 


Ch 


*-h 


os 




CN 


00 


L—_ 


LO 


"*„ 








s ra « 


!S.* 


o* 


LO* 


CO* 


■** 


os" 


CO* 


tH* 






< 


^ => p,ft 


LO 


LO 




CN 

T — 1 


T — 1 
T — 1 


CN 













* s 


OS 


o 




[ - 


LO 


T — 1 


CO 


CO 


CN 


os 




M< 


CO 


CO 


02 


T — 1 


CO 


OS 


CN) 




00 




i — i Qi> H 


CO, 


CO 


"*„ 


00 




CO 


CN 


00 


CO 






111 


CO* 


CO* 


os* 


TH 


CN* 


CO 


CN* 




»■* 


c—* 




LO 




CO 


CO 


02 


00 




CN) 








00, 


CO 


CO 


LO 


t— 


CO 


CN 








K 




CM* 




















for 




■H 

1— 1 

3 


C3 

-a 


















tal 


m o -f a 


OS 
















o 


o 


a 0) § ? 


0> 










o 


O 


o 


o 


CS 


To 


Grou 
siz 
prod 
ai 


h 

c3 


O 


1 

LO 


CN 
I 

T — 1 


LO 
1 

CN 


1 

LO 


CN) 
1 

o 


LO 
1 

o 


tH 
1 

o 


over 1' 




CO 

< 


i 


o 










CN 


LO 



370 



V. I. LENIN 



Concerning the table on page 22.* 
It is Table 1 taken from Vol. 2 0 2. 

I have two mistakes in the table: inadvertent transpo- 
sition of columns 7 and 8. That's one. 

Then, the figures in Column 8 have been shifted.** Both 
mistakes have been noted. 

The table refers to Occupations Group I (type of occupation 
A 1)= agriculture, breeding of animals used in agriculture, 
dairy farming, milk collector, agricultural wine-making, 
fruit-growing, vegetable gardening, tobacco-growing, etc. 
(p. 5) (type of occupation A 1) 

"The subgroups of occupations under A, etc. (p. 4) include: 

a) independents, also managing employees and other 
managers of enterprises; b) non-managing employees, in 
general scientifically, technically and commercially trained 
administrative and supervisory personnel, and also book- 
keepers and office workers; c) other assistants, apprentices, 
factory wage workers and day labourers, including family 
members employed in industry and servants" (p. 4). 

"The subgroup of occupations I A (type of occupations 
A 1) includes: 

Al) owners and co-owners; A 2) leaseholders, hereditary 
leaseholders; A 3) managing employees, other managers of 
production; B 1) employees on farms, also trainees and 
apprentices; B 2) supervisory personnel; B 3) book-keepers 
and office workers; C 1) family members working on the 
farm of the head of household; C 2) agricultural farm-hands, 
male and female; C 3) agricultural labourers, day labourers, 
cultivating their own or leased land; C 4) agricultural labour- 
ers, day labourers, not cultivating their own or leased 
land, but other land; C 5) agricultural labourers, day labour- 
ers, not cultivating any land" (p. 5). 

I leave out the subgroups of occupations I B= vegetable 
gardening and livestock farming (types of occupations 
A 2, A 3); II A: forestry and hunting (type of occupations 
A 4) and II B: fisheries (types of occupations A 5, A 6), 
which together with I A constitute the group A of 



* See pp. 342-45.— Ed. 
** In the MS., the figures in Column 8 groups 1-5) were displaced. In this 
volume they are given as indicated by Lenin (see p. 343). — Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



371 



occupations. In this section totals are given for A, 
B, C, but without subdivision into A 1-3, 
B 1-3, C 1-5. 

Written September 1910 
-later than June 1913 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



372 



PLAN FOR PROCESSING THE DATA 
OF THE GERMAN AGRICULTURAL CENSUS 
OF JUNE 12, 1907 114 



Capitalism in German agriculture, 
The economics of German agriculture 
according to the data of the 1907 Cen- 
sus. 

The capitalist system of agriculture in Germany accord 
ing to the June 12, 1907 Census 



The following main groups of questions (or themes) in 
processing the June 12, 1907 (agricultural) Census. 

1. 0. Introduction. General 
statement of the question: "areas". 
My analysis of the 2 data. 



pp. 1-8 



115 



(I. 8-20) 
§ I. (pp. 8-20) 



'3 main groups 

of farms 
in Germany" 



§ II. Proletarian 

farms 

(20-30) 



2. 1. Main Groups. 

Proletarian, — peasant, — capitalist. 

Co-relation of the three groups. 



Importance of this grouping. Proof of 
its being correct 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



373 



§ III. (3040) 3. Hired labour. 

§ IV. (60-50) / 4. 2. Female and child labour. The 
I + II \ 1 °dious privilege of small-scale pro- 

duction. 

§ V (50-59) 5. 3. Labour vs. farmland and quantity 

of livestock. (Waste in small-scale 
production) 

§ VI (60-73) 6. 4. Machines (cf. with H u n g a r i- 

§ VII (73-87) a n statistics 116 ) 



7. 5. Livestock 



group- 
ing 



N.B. 
American 

and 
Russian 
statistics 



r 10. 



(Increase in 
quantity of 
livestock. 
Decrease in 
number of 
livestock 
owners. 



Hence, 
growth of 
expropri- 
ation 



data 



Comparison with Danish 
(cf. Dutch and Swiss) 

6. Main occupation of owners 
(cf. 1895) 117 (Farms as side lines.) 

7. Family, fa m i I y-capitalist and 
capitalist farms by number of 
workers. 



6 bis 



8. Industries. 

9. Use of land. [Quantity of livestock 
vs. fodder area. Cf. Drechsler 118 
and Hungarian statistics.] 

10. Rural population by status in 
production (data not comparable). 

11. Wine-growing farms (nothing in- 
teresting). 



* This line was red-pencilled in the MS. to denote that up to there the 
plan for the processing of German agricultural census data was used by Lenin 
in his article, "The Capitalist System of Modern Agriculture" (Article I). — Ed. 



374 



V. I. LENIN 



f American ^ 

and 
Russian 
statistics . 



11. 



1) 
2) 
3) 
4) 
5) 



12. Comparison with 1895. 
Growth of medium (peasant; 
farms. Transition to livestock 
farming. 

American statistics, on grouping, 
Danish \ on concentration of 
Swiss J livestock, 
Hungarian on implements, 
Russian on co-operatives. 



The following themes remain for 
a second, article; 



8. Livestock farming. Increase in quan- 
tity along with a decrease in the 
number of owners = expropriation. 
Cf. Danish and Swiss data. 



9. Livestock feed. Cf. fodder area (cf. 
Drechsler). 



10. Main and auxiliary occupation. 
Non-farmers and semi-farmers. 
Cf. 1895. 



11. Family, family-capitalist and capital- 
ist farms. Three main groups. 



12. Cf. 1895. N.B.: American statistics 
on 2 groups. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



375 











Tables: (in 1st article 119 ) 


(=) 


l) 


p. 


19— 


3 main groups (and hired labour) 




2) 


Jr 


Bi- 


number of workers (family and hired) per 










farm in the seven groups 




3) 


P. 


as— 


% of temporary workers in the seven 


(=) 








groups 


(=) 


4) 


P. 


42— 


% of women in the seven groups 




5) 


P. 

Jr * 


45— 


% of children in the seven groups — 




6) 


P. 

Jr * 


52— 


average size of farm and area per worker 


(=) 








in the seven groups 


CD 


7) 


P- 


62— 


machinery (%, number of machines owned 
and %) in the seven groups 


CD 








(=) 


8) 


P- 


69— 


hired labour and machines (3 groups) 




9) 


P- 


79— 


ploughs on farm — 8 groups 

% of cases of use of machinery in 1882, 




10) 


P- 


86— 


CD 








1895, 1907 in the seven groups 



Written September 1910 
-later than June 1913 



First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



Printed from the original 



376 



DANISH STATISTICS 120 

Danmarks Statistik. 



Livestock: 1 8 3 8: Statistical Tables, 
Earliest Series, Part Five. 1861: ibid., 
Third Series, Vol. 3.— 1 86 6: ibid., 

Third Series, Vol. 10.— 187 1: ibid., Third Series, 
Vol. 24.— 1 8 7 6: Fourth Series, C No. 1 . — 1881: Fourth 
Series. C No. 3— |1888| : Fourth Series, C No. 6.— [1893J: 
Fourth Series, C No. 8.— [1898J : Fifth Series, C No. 2 
(and Statistical Bulletins, Fourth Series, Vol. 5, Part 4) — 
1 1903 1 : Statistical Bulletins, Fourth Series, Vol. 16, Part 
6. — 1 1909J : Statistical Tables, Fifth Series, C No. 5. 



I had the 
last 5 (|_|) 
(1888-1909) 



MATERIAL 



ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



377 



.in 

j3 o ^ « » 



5 B 
° & 



* a g rt a, J 
io"3 a a-fi 



• o.S: 



si a o 



03 



CD 

Q 



o 
o 

co 

CD 
> 



54H 

o 



Pi 

o3 



»Se a o n, g Ml =p 

ft 

— 1 o a 



o 
Id 

CO 



CO 
CD 



CO 
CM 



tr- CO 

LO CD 

tH Co" 

*H CN 



o 



CN "tf 
ZD ZD 

CN of 



CO 00 

CN ■> 

CD CN 

o o 

CD 



CN 00 
CN M< 

q th 

co" co" 

00 

CO 



CN CN CN CO 



LO o 

S; ° 

C5 O 

CO~ LQ- 
CO T — I 

LO CO 

co" co" 



Two- 
horse 
teams 


136,534 
143,875 
166,531 


Other 
vehicles 


123,305 
159,330 
206,076 


Carts 


265,775 
292,703 
327,003 


Number 
of farms 

with 
horned 

cattle 


176,452 
177,186 
179,800 
180,641 
179,225 
183,643 


Popula- 
tion 


1,811,000 
1,999,000 
2,140,000 


Total 
livestock 
in terms 

of big 
cattle 1): 


1,565,538 
1,856,041 
2,008,606 
2,278,135 
2,338,042 


Horned 
cattle 
(head) 


854,726 
1,118,774 
1,238,898 
1,470,078 
1,459,527 
1,696,190 
1,744,797 
1,840,466 
2,253,982 




1838: 
1861: 
1871: 
1881: 
1888: 
1893: 
1898: 
1903: 
1909: 



CJ5 
+ 



+ 

oo oo 

CO 00 

oo oo 



o3 
O 
bJO 



03 

P. 

CD 
CD 

CO 



II M 

Ch CO 
O 00 
T3 CO 



Co 
^ S3 

II s 

o 

CD ~ 
CO ° 

° 15 

. ., CO 

" | 
CD «0 

^ a 

at 5 

CD -Ka 
O co 

CD 

-1 

bJD 

tH ft 



378 



V. I. LENIN 



(In 1903 — no data on quantity 
Number of farms with ... 





1 


2 


3 


4-5 


6-9 


1909: 


9,167 


16,785 


19,092 


31,273 


32,710 


1903: 












1898: 


18,376 


27,394 


22,522 


27,561 


26,022 


1893: 


20,596 


27,714 


21,908 


26,877 


25,494 


1888: 


29,394 


32,115 


19,982 


22,889 


23,013 



Danish 1909 
Pages: 



(p. 48*) 





farms 


% 


Land 

0/ 
/o 


Horned 
cattle 

% 


< 3. 3 ha 


101,124 


42. 2 


2-6 


4-9 


3.3-9. 9 ha 


50,732 


21. 2 


9.! 


I2.3 


9. 9-29. 7 ha 


55,703 


23.3 


31. 2 


35. 2 


> 29. 7 ha 


31,916 


13.3 


57.! 


47. 6 




2=239,475 


lOO.Q 


lOO.o 


lOO.o 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



379 



of horned cattle by groups, 
head of horned cattle: 

10-14 15-29 30-49 50-99 100-199 200 and > Total 

22,498 37,384 11,360 2,440 640 294 183,641 



20,375 


30,460 


5,650 


1,498 


588 


195 


19,802 


29,865 


5,335 


1,447 


594 


168 


19,855 


24,383 


3,638 


1,233 


555 


129 



180,641 
177,186 



statistics 
48*; 162 



(p. 162) 
Number of farms with 
horned cattle 



38,696 
49,558 
55,188 
31,781 

175,223 



+ 4,738 
179,961 



% 

38% 
98% 
99% 
99% 

73% 



Head of 
horned cattle 



105,923 
267,817 
767,355 
1,039,740 

2,180,835 



+ 37,515 
2,218,350 



380 



V. I. LENIN 



a) Under 3. 3 ha= roughly proletarians and semi-prole- 
tarians 

(3) 3.3-9.9 ha = small peasants 

y) 9.9-29.7 ha = big peasants, peasant bourgeoisie 

8) > 29.7 ha = capitalist agriculture 









Horned 




Farms 


Land 


cattle 




/o 




% 


« + (3)) 


63. 4 


11. 7 


17. 2 


8)) 


13.3 


57.! 


47. 6 


Y + 8)) 


36. 6 


88.3 


82. 8 % 



Number of farms by head 
of horned cattle 

1881 1888 

1- 3 head 79,320 81,491 

4-14 67,122 65,757 

15-49 28,089 28,021 

50 and over 1,921 1,917 

Total 176,452 177,186 







(p. 42*) 






+ 


Number 


of farms 


by head 


of horned cattle 




or 




1898 


/o 


1909 


0/ 
/o 


1898-1909 


1- 3 head 


68,292 


37. 8 


45,044 


24. 5 


—34. 0 % 


4-14 


73,958 


4O.9 


86,481 


47-i 


+ 16. 9 % 


15-49 


36,110 


20.Q 


48,744 


26. 6 


+ 35. 0 % 


50 and > 


2,281 


1-3 


3,374 


1-8 


+46. 3 % 


2 = 


180,641 


lOO.o 


183,643 


lOO.o 


+ 1.7% 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



381 



Number of horned cattle compared: 



(p. 18*) 
per '000 

population per '000 ha 
837 (682) 1) 578 (38) 2 ) 



Denmark 
Germany 
Russia . 



330 (343) 
270 (292) 



382 (29) 
68 (5) 



In Germany, 10-20 ha farms 
have 33% of the hired labour 
N.B. 



1898 

Number 
of farms 

% 

Without land 4. 82 

<1 Tonde Hartkarn* . . . 52. 49 

1-4 " " ... 16. 34 

4and>" " ... 10.RQ 



84-34 

Unidentified area . . . 16-46 



2 = 100. 80 



*) Bracketed figures are for 1883-1888 
2 ) idem, per s q. km. 



100 ha = 1 sq. km. 



* Under 1 Tonde Hartkarn means "areas with a crop yield of under 
1 ton".— Ed. 



382 V. I. LENIN 



Number of farms 
by quantity of 
horned cattle 



1885 


1888 


1881 




147,584 50 and more head 
2,671 15-49 


1,917 
28,021 


1,921 
28,089 


— 4 

— 68 


144,913, 4-14 
87,621+ 1-3 


65,757 
81,491 


67,122 
79,320 


— 1,365 
+ 2,171 


232,534 




176,452 





Written in December 1910-1913 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



383 



AUSTRIAN AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 

EXTRACTS 



N.B. Oesterreichische Statistik, Band 8 3 (Vol. LXXXIII), 
Heft 1, (1902). 



The name of this volume: Results of the Farm Census 
of June 3, 1902 (etc.). Vienna, 1 90 9. 
Austrian Agricultural Statistics 
Austrian Statistical Handbook 

Vol. 27 —1908 etc. (back) 
Vol. 28*) —1909 (last one) 
Results of the Farm Census of June 3, 1902 (Vol. 27, 
p. 138). 



% 

Number of enterprises in general . . . 2,856,349 100 
" purely agricultural .... 2,133,506 74. 7 
" agricultural and forestry. . 713,382 25. „ 
" purely forestry 9,461 0. 3 



Average size of enterprise in ha: 

total area = 10. 5 ha 
productive area = 9. 9 ha 



*) Vol. 29—1910 (Vienna, 1911, 6 kronen). 
Nothing about agricultural statistics. Only references to 
previous years. 

There are data on industry. 



1 



384 



V. I. LENIN 



Agricultural and forestry enter 

By type of 

Number of enterprises with indication 





in general *) 


under 2 ha 


o inn l- n 

z-100 na 


over 100 na 


Machinery in general 


947,111 


139,548 


796,811 


10,752 




804,427 


109,218 


685,418 


9,791 


Cleaners and graders 


372,501 


33,273 


332,186 


7,042 




328,708 


10,089 


310,316 


8,303 




75,331 


3,580 


66,208 


5,543 




45,117 


9,073 


33,682 


2,362 


Rakes and tedders . . . 


14,326 


76 


9,859 


4,391 




13,151 


68 


10,182 


2,901 




0,0 /4 


O A O 


1 C A O 


o o o 


Rootcrop lifters .... 


6,175 


205 


4,720 


1,250 


Maize cultivators .... 


4,608 


277 


3,863 


468 


^/l Q n T* o cni'OQnoi'c 
IvlallLlIc spicallclB ... 


9 438 




Q7Q 


1 434 


Hay and straw presses . 


1,668 


255 


1,147 


266 




383 




45 


338 


Narrow gauge lines . . . 


122 




16 


106 


*) Percentage of 
farms using machin- 
ery 


33. 2 


10-9 


51.io 


60.i 



* Figures from Austrian Statistics, Vol. LXXXIII, Part 1, p. xxxiv and 
(p. 385) is a selective summary from a number of tables. — Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



385 



prises using agricultural machinery: 
machinery: 

of use of machines: with cultivated area 



2-5 ha 


5-10 


10-20 


20-50 


50-100 


288,931 


220,588 


174,876 


100,520 


11,896 


248,163 


190,237 


149,706 


87,038 


10,274 


87,271 


92,355 


95,292 


52,322 


4,946 


43,142 


76,744 


109,982 


72,595 


7,853 


6,592 


11,993 


25,450 


19,840 


2,333 


9,216 


7,417 


8,403 


7,475 


1,171 


155 


417 


2,134 


5,511 


1,642 


261 


575 


2,530 


5,616 


1,200 


562 


799 


2,488 


3,246 


448 


608 


904 


1,498 


1,356 


354 


490 


698 


1,321 


1,113 


241 


54 


97 


183 


406 


239 


250 


248 


276 


284 


89 


1 




4 


19 


21 




3 


1 


5 


7 



pp. 27-29. The first part of the table (p. 884) is given in full, the second 



386 



V. I. LENIN 



Classification of agricultural and forestry enterprises by size 
of productive area (distinct from total area, farmland, 
ploughland and meadow, etc.) 



(Vol. 27, p, 141) 



My 
total 



Under 0. 5 


ha 


343,860 


0-5- 1 


?5 


369,464 


1- 2 


?5 


561,897 


2- 5 


?5 


792,415 


5- 10 


?5 


383,331 


10- 20 


?) 


242,293 


20- 50 


?5 


127,828 


50-100 


?5 


17,372 


>100 


5? 


17,889 


2 




2,856,349 



100- 200 
200- 500 
500-1,000 
> 1,000 



8,099 
6,050 
2,100 
1,640 



No general grouping by area, only data on enterprises 

(by produc 



Total . . . 

with 100 ha 
and over . . 

under 100 ha 



Number 
of enter- 
prises 



Plough 
land 



Meadow 

2,856,3491 10,624,851 3,072,230 



17,889 1,640,937 391,047 
2,838,460 8,983,914 2,681,183 



Area 



^rtnl 6 Vineyards 



371,240 

32,617 
338,623 



242,062 

7,372 
234,690 



* These detailed figures by groups of area over 100 ha are taken from 
**The data in the following table are taken from the same source, 
** The data are from the same source, 27th year of publication, 1908, 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 387 

(Vol. 27, p. 143) 

Enterprises by productive 

by farmland area** 

% % 

Under 2 ha 1,322,565 46. 5 1,275,221 44. 6 

2- 5 ha 810,225 28. 5 792,415 27. 7 

5- 20 " 613,290 21. 6 625,624 21. 9 

20-100 " 89,342 3^ 145,200 5^ 

Over 100 ha 11,466 0. 3 17,889 0. 7 

2,846,888 100. 0 2,856,349 100. 0 

with 100 ha and over and enterprises with < 100 ha 
tive area)*** 

in ha: 

M . • Lakes, swamps, 

Pastures „l t „ * f Forest ponds and un- Total 

pastures suitable land 

2,655,371 1,399,724 9,777,933 1,857,373 30,000,794 

652,273 900,899 5,477,565 750,866 9,853,576 

2,003,098 498,825 4,300,368 1,106,507 20,147,206 



Austrian Statistical Handbook, 28th year of publication, 1909 (p. 149). — Ed. 
27th year of publication, 1908, pp. 141 and 142.— Ed. 
pp. 146-47.— Ed. 



388 



V. I. LENIN 



(Vol. 28, 
Enterprises by personnel 





Purely family enterprises 




owner only 


family members 


TTtiHpt" 0 e Ti a 


150,944 


181,323 




0 5 -l ha 


115,117 


227,109 




1- 2 " 


126,203 


379,991 




2- 5 " 


114,833 


545,274 




5- 10 " 


29,719 


227,476 




10-20 " 


8,565 


91,456 




20-50 " 


1,441 


23,602 




50-100 " 


182 


1,299 




over 100 " 


103 


300 




Total 


547,107 


1,677,830 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



389 



p. 152) 

and productive area: 





Enterprises with non-family personnel 




without employees or 


supervisory personnel 






servants 
only 


day labour- 
ers only 


servants and 
day labour- 
ers 


outside 
labour only 


with employees 
and supervisory 
personnel 




with casual outside labour 








7,569 


1,093 


79 


1,000 


1,852 




10,326 


2,688 


173 


12,960 


1,091 




25,146 


5,441 


503 


22,945 


1,668 




72,380 


13,675 


1,952 


41,286 


3,015 




81,182 


12,027 


3,302 


26,546 


3,079 




107,401 


8,193 


6,955 


15,960 


3,763 




79,277 


3,469 


9,887 


4,702 


5,450 




9,189 


579 


2,060 


332 


3,731 




3,844 


207 


828 


79 


12,528 




396,314 


47,372 


25,739 


125,810 


36,177 



[ctd on next page] 



390 



V. I. LENIN 



Personnel 







male 


female 






All 

persons 


over 




% 


under 




/o 


over 


% 


under 


/o 














16 


years old 










Under 
0. 5 ha 


676,498 


9Q C > 781 " 






28,917" 






321,197 






30,603 








O.r-lha 


846,265 


366,460 


> 


43-i 


44,368 


- 


5. 7 


389,709 


> 


45. 4 


45,728 


> 


5-8 




1-2 ha 


1,477,786 


632,150. 






96,609 






651,033. 






97,994. 








2- 5 ha 


2,454,298 


1,045,423 




42. 6 


191,088 




7 

'•8 


1,032,920 


42^ 


184,867 


7-5 




5- 10 ha 


1,412,013 


612,615" 






114,465" 






578,558" 






106,375" 








10- 20 ha 


1,044,972 


466,357. 


t 


43. 9 


70,279. 






444,227. 


1 


41. 6 


64,109. 


1 


7-0 




20- 50 ha 


706,665 


329,369" 






44,257" 






296,132" 






36,907 








50- 100 ha 


126,291 


66,803. 


1 


47. 6 


6,311. 


■ 


6., 


48,233. 


1 


41. 3 


4,944. 


1 


5. 0 




over 
100 ha 


325,894 


228,949 




70. 3 


7,500 




2. 3 


83,220 


25. 6 


6,225 


1-9 




Total 


9,070,682 


4,043,907 


44. 6 


603,795 


6-6 


3,845,229 


42. 5 


577,752 


6-3 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



391 





Number of gainfully employed persons 


owners 


family 
members 


employees 


super- 
visors 


servants 


day 
labourers 




378,485 
427,081 
662,367 
954,844 
476,644 
325,083 
171,126 
17,791 

10,595 


285,573 
401,905 
775,754 
1,384,305 
789,325 
474,248 
237,972 
27,642 

12,681 


86 
18 
24 
40 
67 
116 
320 
533 

11,090 


1,895 
1,103 
1,686 
3,051 
3,114 
3,884 
5,716 
4,146 

33,062 


8,935 
12,440 
29,984 
91,136 
120,151 
214,674 
259,787 
60,306 

145,353 


1,524 
3,718 
7,971 
20,922 
22,712 
26,967 
31,744 
15,873 

113,113 


3,424,016 


4,389,405 


12,294 


57,657 


942,766 


244,544 



[ctd on next page] 



392 



V. I. LENIN 



[ctd] 





Purely family 
farms 


Farms with 
non-family 
personnel 


Total farms 


* 




Under 0. 5 ha 


339 9fi7 


11 ^93 




343,860 






0-5-1 " 


342,226 


27,238 




369,464 






1-2 


506,194 


55,703 




561,897 






2-5 




fifiO 107 


139 308 




792,415 








5- 10 " 




257,195 


126,136 




383,331 








10-20 " 




100,021 


142,272 




242,293 








20- 50 " 


25,043 


102,785 




127,828 






50-100 " 


1,481 


15,891 




17,372 






>100 " 


403 


17,486 




17,889 








9 994 Q37 




2,856,349 




Under 5 ha 




226,842 


2,067,636 






5- 10 " 




126,136 




383,331 




10 and > " 




278,434 




405,382 










631,412 


2,856,349 





The three boxed figures are combined from Table 6 of Austrian Stati 
Source of this and the following tables: Austrian Statistics. Vol. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



393 



Number of farms connected with 



agricultural 



industrial 



wage labour 



wage labour 
without 
further 

specification 



(My 
total) 

Farms 
providing 
hired 
labour 



Number 
of farms 
connected 

with 
handicraft 
industries 



103,949 
131,738 
190,504 

186,271 



58,173 



670,635 

(oc + p) total 
with hired 
labour and 
craftsmen 



1 



1,049,655 
107,479 

1,157,134 



47,585 
36,152 
44,314 

38,381 



11,437 



177,869 



25,072 
27,587 
39,090 

37,082 



14, 036 



176,606 
195,477 
273,908 

261,734 



83,646 



142,867 991,371 



) 



(a) 
907,725 

83,646 
991,371 



} 



27,266 
27,271 
39,782 

47,611 



23,833 



165,763 

(P) 
141,930 

23,833 
165,763 



[ctd on next page] 



stical Handbook, 28th year of publication, 1909 (p. 152).— Ed. 
LXXXIII, Part 1, p. 41.— Ed. 



394 



V. I. LENIN 



[ctd] 





Number of farms 
connected with 










other 
agricul- 
tural 
enter- 
prises 


indus- 
trial 
enter- 
prises 


Total 
men 


Total 
women 


% 




Under 0. 5 ha 








324,698 


351,800 


52. 0 




0. 5 -l " 




- 13,187 


127,088 


410,828 


435,437 


51.5 




1-2 








728,759 


749,027 


50. 7 






2-5 






8,659 


72,385 


1,236,511 


1,217,787 




49. 6 








5- 10 " 






5,540 


35,551 


727,080 


684,933 




48. 5 








10- 20 " 






4,922 


21,689 


536,636 


508,336 




48. 6 






20- 50 " 




4,130 


12,595 


373,626 


333,039 


47.! 




50-100 " 




1,354 


2,702 


73,114 


53,177 


42. 1 




over 100 " 




3,396 


4,726 


236,449 


89,445 


27. 4 






41,188 


276,736 


4,647,701 


4,422,981 


48.7 




Under 5 ha 




221,319 










5-10 " 




41,091 










10 ha and over 




55,514 














317,924 











MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



395 



Total chil- 
dren (under 
16 years) 



Total family 
workers 



Total hired 
labourers 



Total 
workers 



59,520 
90,096 
194,603 

375,955 
220,840 
134,388 

81,164 
11,255 
13,725 



10. 6 
13. 2 



15. 3 
15. 6 
12. » 



11-3 
9-n 



664,058 
828,986 
1,438,121 

2,339,149 
1,265,969 
799,331 

409,098 
45,433 
23,276 



12,440 
17,279 
39,665 

115,149 
146,044 
245,641 

297,567 
80,858 
302,618 



676,498 
846,265 
1,477,786 

2,454,298 
1,412,013 
1,044,972 

706,665 
126,291 
325,894 



1,181,546 



13. f 



7,813,421 



1,257,261 



9,070,682 



5,270,314 
1,265,969 
1,277,138 

7,813,421 



184, 533 
146,044 
926,684 

1,257,261 



5,454,847 
1,412,013 
2,203,822 

9,070,682 



Number 
of farms 

using 
machin- 
ery 

428,479 

220,588 

298,044 

947,111 



396 



V. I. LENIN 



Vol. 28, p. 150 
Maintenance of livestock in 
connection with size of productive area 



Horses 



Horned 
cattle 



Goats 



Sheep 



Under 2 ha 


78,760 


2-5 " 


230,079 


5-20 " 


307,765 


20- 50 " 


79,769 


50-100 " 


10,410 


over 100 " 


10,771 


Total: 


717,544 



720,490 
714,530 
595,890 
121,655 
14,692 
12,110 



244,373 
62,709 
66,541 
20,797 
3,265 
2,156 



71,004 
73,713 
97,087 
32,657 
6,679 
4,178 



Pigs 



Number 
of farms 
with live- 
stock in 
general* 



a) Number of farms with this livestock 



486,891 
462,421 
473,947 
110,988 
12,816 
7,695 



761,527 

122,844 
14,934 
12,620 



2,179,367 399,841 



285,318 1,554,758 2,544,792 



b) Quantity of livestock 



Under 2 ha 110,101 

2-5 " 379,087 

5-20 " 626,149 

20- 50 " 215,739 

50-100 " 39,286 

over 100 " 170,569 

Total: 1,540,931 



1,232,007 446,808 

1,975,503 148,818 

3,343,032 145,683 

1,493,417 50,397 

301,599 15,339 

679,699 19,711 

3,025,257 826,756 



503,187 813,836 

599,797 981,935 

890,110 1,680,992 

379,272 674,273 

127,702 108,629 

302,278 105,430 

2,802,346 4,365,005 



Number of farms with this livestock 



Under O.cha 5,790 86,197 93,321 14,501 98,340 215,941 

0. 5 -l " 13,973 199,278 80,781 19,627 135,465 298,474 

1-2 " 58,978 435,015 70,271 36,876 253,086 507,990 

5-10 " 176,081 362,559 34,941 55,561 275,007 373,892 

10-20 " 131,684 233,331 31,600 41,526 198,940 236,570 



Quantity of livestock 



Under O.5 ha 7,535 

O.5-I " 18,515 

1-2 " 84,051 

5-10 " 336,128 

10-20 " 290,021 



121,406 157,412 

297,048 149,762 

813,553 139,634 

1,616,774 80,243 

1,726,258 65,440 



103,588 151,416 

130,128 217,274 

269,471 445,146 

503,797 808,701 

386,313 872,291 



Written not earlier than 
1910-not later than 1912 

First published in 1938 Printed from the original 

in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



Source: Austrian Statistics, Vol. LXXXIII, Part 1, p. 21.— Ed. 



397 



REMARKS ON SCHMELZLE'S ARTICLE, 
"DISTRIBUTION OF RURAL LAND HOLDINGS, 
INFLUENCE ON THE PRODUCTIVITY 
AND DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURE" 122 



Dr. Schmelzle. "Die landliche Grundbesitzverteilung, ihr 
Einfluss auf die Leistungsfahigkeit der Landwirtschaft 
und ihre Entwicklung" (Annalen des Deutschen Reichs, 46. 
Jahrgang, 1913, No. 6, S. 401-33). 



The author talks platitudes refuses to differentiate 
between various, small, medium and large farms, but he 
does give many interesting indications of and references 
to the latest writings. 



(Stumpfe) Marks 

Cost of buildings per ha 

on the big farms 360 

(p. 407) " medium " 420 

small " 472 

Quante *) 123 : Cost of buildings per ha for Marks 



The implication is "higher 
cost of repairs, insurance and 
depreciation". 



under-5-ha farms 1,430 
5-20 ha 896 
20-100 " 732 
100-500 " 413 
500 and over " 419 



Dr. Vogeley 2 ) 124 reckons the averages 

for this per ha Marks 
on middle-peasant farms 64. 48 
" big " " 57. 6 3 



398 



V. I. LENIN 



"Untersuchungen betreffend die 
zerischen Landwirtschaft." Bericht 
Bern 1911.* 



Rentabilitat der schwei- 
des Bauernsekretariats. 

The earnings 
of an entre- 
preneur and 
his family 
per male 
working day 
1901-09 



Capital in implements 
per ha 



under 5 ha 
5-10 " 
10-15 " 
15-30 " 
over 30 " 



Per person working on 

the farms over 15 ha 

2)125 10-15 " 

under 10 " 



395 francs 

309 

253 

231 

156 

cultivated 
farmland 
ha 



4. 



67 
•63 
•59 



2. 01 francs 

9 " 

^•27 

9 " 
^•31 

9 " 
^•26 

4 -15 

of which 

ploughhland 



2. 87 ha 

32 



Literature: 

Werner und Albrecht. Der Betrieb det deutschen Land- 
wirtschaft am Schlusse des 19. Jahrhunderts. Berlin 1902.** 

M. Sering. Die Bodenbesitzverteilung und die Sicherung 
des Kleinbesitzes. Schriften des Vereins fiir Sozialpolitik. 
Band 68. (1893).*** 

Fr. Brinkmann: Die Grundlagen der englischen Land- 
wirtschaft. Hannover 1909.**** 

Keup-Miihrer: Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung von 
Gross- und Kleinbetrieb in der Landwirtschaft . Berlin 
1913. [Price 11 frs 25]***** 
2 ) Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft. Heft 
118: 133: 123: 218: 130. ****** 



* A Study of the Profitability of Swiss Agriculture, Report of the 
Peasant Secretariat.— Ed. 

** German Agricultural Production at the Close of the 19th Century. 

-Ed. 

*** Distribution of Land Holdings and the Security of Small Holdings. 
Transactions of the Social Policy Association. — Ed. 
**** The Principles of British Agriculture. — Ed. 
***** The National Economic Importance of Large- and Small-scale 
Production in Agriculture. — Ed. 

****** Transactions of the German Agricultural Society. — Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



399 



*) Thiels Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher. 1905. S. 955.* 

E. Laur. Grundlagen und Methoden der Bewertung etc. 
in der Landwirtschaft . Berlin 1911.** 

(Sammelwerk): Neuere Erfahrungen auf dem Gebiet 
des landwirtschaf lichen Betriebswesens.*** Berlin 1910. 

Petersilie: "Schichtung und Aufbau der Landwirtschaft 
in Preussen." Zeitschrift des Koniglichen Preussischen 
Statistischen Landesamts. 1913.**** 

H. Losch: Die Verdnderungen im wirtschaftlichen etc. 
Aufbau der Bevolkerung Wiirtembergs. (Wiirtembergische 
Jahrbiicher fur Statistik. 1911.)***** 

M. Hecht: Die Badische Landwirtschaft. Karlsruhe 
190 3 ****** 

Germany 1907 (Dr. Arthur Schulz where?) (P. 410) 



Calculated total 
number of permanently 
employed persons 


Per permanently employed person 


horses 


horned 
cattle 


pigs 


sheep 


poul- 
try 


2- 5 ha 2,346,000 
5- 20 " 3,891,000 
20-100 " 1,804,000 
over 100 " 1,068,000 

On the whole, says 
is weaker (p. 414). Th 


0-10 
0-34 
0-67 
0-61 

the ai 
ere are 


1- 34 

2 - 02 
2. 94 

2 -18 

ithor, s 
special 


1-19 

1- 62 

2- 02 
1-29 

mall-sc 

crops, 


0-15 

0- 37 

1- 28 
4-io 

ale pro 
vegeta 


6 -25 
7< 09 
^•85 
3 -35 

duction 
ale gar- 



dening, but their part is weak. 

(P. 415.) Area under cereals per 100 ha of cultivated 
farmland in 1907 

Germany 



< 2 ha 
2- 5 " 
5- 20 " 
20-100 " 
100 and over 



31., 
42., 

47. E 

48. J 

47.: 



Bavaria 

29. 4 
38. 8 

41-8 
43-5 
34. Q 



* Thiel's Agricultural Yearbook. — Ed. 
** Principles and Methods of Assessment, etc., in Agriculture. — Ed. 
*** (Collection): The Latest Experiments in Agricultural Production. — 

Ed. 

**** "Stratification and Structure of Agriculture in Prussia." Journal 
of the Royal Prussian Statistical Board. — Ed. 

***** Changes in the Economic, etc. Structure of the Population in Wtirt- 
temberg (Wurttemberg Statistical Yearbooks). — Ed. 
****** Baden Agriculture.— Ed. 



400 



V. I. LENIN 



Crop statistics (1901-10) 



The result is 
said to be not in 
favour of small- 
scale production 



double 
centners 
wheat rye 



Germany 19. 6 

Belgium 23. 6 

Denmark 27. 8 

France 13. 6 

. Great Britain 21. 4 



16. 3 
21. 7 
17. 3 

10. 6 

17. 6 



Livestock farming: in Bavaria (1907) per 100 ha of cul- 
tivated farmland 

head of horned 
cattle (p. 419) 



The big farms are said to have bet- 
ter livestock in general: (p. 419) 

Cf. Part 218, Transactions of the 
German Agricultural Society 



under 2 ha 
2- 5 " 
5- 20 " 
20-100 " 
100 and over 



137. 6 
125. 1 
109. 8 
98. 7 
62. 7 



p. 420: (From Part 81 of The Contribution to the Statis- 
tics of the Kingdom of Bavaria, p. 146*) 



N.B. 



Under 

2 ha 
2- 5 " 
5- 20 " 

20-100 " 

100 and 



Bavaria: 



Per farm with the following species 
of livestock 



horned cattle 



1907 



1-9 
3-7 

8. 7 
21. 4 



increase 

from 
1882 to 
1882 1907% 



1-7 
3., 



17. 



82. 7 54.J 



% 



H-8 
15. 6 
19. 2 
23. 7 



52. c 



2.7 



10. 



pigs 



increase 

/o 



1907 1882 



48. 7 21.! 



1. 6 18. 8 

3. 4 35. 3 
l. t 43. 7 

130. o 



Head 
of horned cattle 
per 100 ha of 
cultivated farmland 



62.7 



increase 

/o 



1907 1882 



131.9 4.3 
- 16. 6 



137.6 .. , 

125-i IO7.3 

109. 8 92.3 19.Q 

98. 7 80. 7 22.3 



5O.3 24. 7 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



401 



Cost-price per kilogramme of milk on farms with 



5-10 ha of area 16. 34 centimes 

10-20 " " " 14. 97 

20-30 " " " 14.43 

over 30 " " " 12. 60 



A Study of the 
Profitability of 
Swiss Agriculture, 
1. c. (p. 422) 



Small-peasant farms . . . 
Small middle-peasant farms 
Middle-peasant farms . . . 
Big middle-peasant farms . 
Big-peasant farms .... 



Schmelzle 

in Weekly of the 
Agricultural Society in 
Bavaria. 1912, No. 4 7 
et seq. 



Growth of gross 
income per ha 

of cultivated 
area in 1906-09 
as compared 
with 1901-05 



-Co 



3 

O iSc 



o3 

CO 
CO o 

2 22 

2; as- 



under 5 ha 
5-10 

10-15 

15-30 
over 30 



169. 
148. 
128. 
122. 
100. 



•35 
•91 
•34 
•42 
•48 



1 S « 

O g 60 
O.S.5 



+ 3., 
17., 
16. 2 
20. B 



.5 2"g 60 

o a 

;l 



2 § g 
o §r-' 



16. 



0/ 

/o 

14. e 
21. s 

21. s 

22. c 
15., 



Both wings of the Social-Democrats are said to be wrong: 
the Radicals in that they tend to forget the difference be- 
tween agriculture and industry, and the revisionists in that 
they allege the superiority of small-scale production to 
be the cause (of the development towards small-scale pro- 
duction) (p. 433). The author is a middle-of-the-roader (11), 
a fool. He says small and middle (5-20 ha) peasant farms 
are growing stronger, area statistics for 1907, etc., etc. 



Written not earlier than July 
1913 

First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



Printed from the original 



402 



REMARKS ON E. LAUR'S BOOK, 

STATISTICAL NOTES ON THE 
DEVELOPMENT OF SWISS AGRICULTURE 
OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS 126 

Statistische Notizen iiber die Entwicklung der schweizeri- 
schen Landwirtschaft in den letzten 25 Jahren. (E. Laur). 
Brugg 1907. 

Participation of Swiss agriculture in supplying the 
country with corn (estimated). 

In the early 1880s = 1,850,000 quintals* = 38. 5 % of de- 
mand 

Now = 850,000 " = 14. 3 % 

Reduction in area under corn 

% 

Zurich (1885)— 15,490 ha —(1896) 13,590— 12. 3 
Canton Berne (1885)— 48,170 " —(1905) 43,340— 10. 0 
Waadt (1886)— 38,510 " —(1905) 28,330— 27. 2 



Maintenance of livestock 


1886 


1906 


+% 


Number of livestock owners . . . 


. 289,274 


274,706 


- 5., 


Livestock owners with farms . . . 


. 258,639 


239,111 


— 7. 




56,499 


72,925 


+ 29., 


Owners of big horned cattle . . . 


. 219,193 


212,950 


— 2. 




232,104 


206,291 


— 11.' 




298,622 


135,091 


+ 36.. 




1,212,538 


1,497,904 


+ 23. 




394,917 


548,355 


+ 38. 




341,804 


209,243 


— 38. 


Goats 


416,323 


359,913 


— 13. 



Double metric centners (100 kg). — Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



403 



Value of livestock 



1886 1906 +% 

Horses 51,245 (000 fr.) 94,523 + 84. 45 

Horned cattle 360,853 527,797 + 46. 2 6 

Pigs 20,997 42,665 +103. i5 

Total 448,579 680,722 + 51. 75 



Milk production 



Milch cows 

Milk goats 

Milk from cows .... 

" " goats .... 

Total milk output .... 

Consumption of milk by pop- 
ulation 

Consumption of milk for 

breeding and fattening of 

calves 

Consumption of milk for 

breeding goats .... 
Consumption of milk for 

breeding pigs 

Consumption of milk for 

condensation and baby food 
Consumption of milk for 

making chocolate . . 
Consumption of milk for 

technical processing on 

Alpine farms 

Milk consumed on farms and 

in households 

Milk marketed 

of this, milk and milk prod- 
ucts for export . . 

of this, milk and milk 
products at home . . 
Value of milk output . . . 

Value, of milk output less 
milk going into breeding 
and fattening of livestock 



663,102 
291,426 
14,678,000 hi* 
(2,210 1) 
874,000 hi 
(300 1) 
15,552,000 hi 


785,577 
251,970 
20,818,000 
(2,650 1) 
756,000 
(300 1) 
21,574,000 hi 


+ I8.47 
+ 14. 84 
— 13. 55 
+ 38.72 


7,217,000 hi 
(300 1) 


10,391,000 


+ 44.00 


O A OH AAA 


O \ O A AAA 
O,lZ4,0U0 


1 1 1 

+ 27. go 


87,000 


75,000 


- 13-80 


117,000 


160,000 


+ 36. 7 5 


369,000 


886,000 


— 140. u 


15,000 


100,000 


+ 566. 6 7 


5,311,000 


6,939,000 


+ 28.75 


5,450,000 
10,102,000 


6,563,000 
15,095,000 


+ 20.42 
+ 49.43 


3,500,000 


4,502,000 


+ 28.63 


6,602,000 
215,500,000 
francs 


10,593,000 
333,210,000 
francs 


+ 6O.45 
+ 54.62 


175,597,000 


286,180,000 


+ 62.Q5 



hi — hectolitres; 1 — litres. — Ed. 



404 V. I. LENIN 



1886 1906 +% 

Total value of Swiss meat 

production 126,612,000 214,810,000 + 70. 72 

francs 

Total value of Swiss meat 

consumption 172,080,000 285,171,000 +65. 71 

Cost of one kg of meat . . 1-514 1-625 + 7 -33 

Per-head consumption of 

meat. 39. 353 kg 50. 103 kg +27. 31 

Consumption of meat (quin- 
tals) 1,136,000 1,755,000 +54. 48 

of this, nationally prod- 
uced 829,000 1,333,000 +60. 79 

of this, imported . . . 307,000 422,000 + 37. 45 



Value of total output (estimated) 





'000 fr. 
in mid- 
18808 


% 


'000 fr. 
now 


% 


+% 




39,000 


7.ifi 


21,300 


2.qo 


45. 




24,471 


4-50 


27,000 


3-70 


+ 10-33 




1,894 


0-35 


1,900 


0-26 


+ 0. 32 




1,000 


0-17 


1,000 


0-14 






250 


0. 04 


400 


0-05 


+ 60.Q0 


Hay for horses not used on 


3,600 


0-66 


4,500 


0-62 


+ 25.00 




49,240 


9-05 


45,000 


6 -16 


- 8.61 




49,500 


9-09 


60,000 


8-21 


+ 21-21 


Vegetable-gardening . . . 


25,926 


4-76 


26,400 


3-61 


+ 1-83 


Horned cattle breeding . . 


6,485 


1-19 


5,600 


O.77 


— 13. 64 


Fattening of horned cattle 
(including export) . . . 


96,250 


17-68 


156,300 


21.40 


+ 62. 39 




288 


0-05 


350 


0-05 


+ 21-52 




38,221 


7-02 


61,480 


8-43 


+ 60.85 




3,800 


0-70 


2,590 


0-35 


— 31. 84 




12,260 


2-25 


13,260 


1-81 


+ 8. 24 


Poultry farming .... 


13,256 


2-43 


14,000 


1-01 


+ 5.61 




2,286 


0-41 


3,000 


0-41 


+ 31-23 




176,597 


32.49 


286,180 


39-20 


+ 62.Q5 


Total .... 


544,314 


100.00 


730,260 


100.00 


+ 34. 16 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



405 



Import of agricultural raw 
materials and machinery 

Fertilisers and waste 

Feedstuffs 

{Bran, oil-cakes (idem ground) . 
Maize 
Flour 

Straw and straw for litter .... 

Seed 

Agricultural machinery and implements 



mid- 
18808 
quintals 


now 
quintals 


+% 


181,720 


913,340 


+ 402. 6 o 


516,000 


1,456,390 


+ 182.25 


27,410 


366,310 


+ l,236.4i 


287,370 


634,620 


+ 120.83 


86,230 


171,850 


+ 99. 30 


110,000 


567,410 


+ 415. 82 


24,130 


11,450 


- 52.55 


1,340 


40,340 


+ 2,910.45 



1885-1888 



1905 



Import of competitive farm 

items i98,38i,ooo 

francs 

Export of competitive farm 

items 78,399,000 

francs 

Agricultural population .... 1888 

Relating to agriculture 1,092,827 

Male 568,024 

Female 524,803 

Technical and managing personnel, men — 

" women 

Man servants 61,320 

Maid servants 9,927 

Day labourers men 35,258 

Day labourers women 8,921 

115,426 

Written in 1913 

First published in 1938 
in Lenin Miscellany XXXI 



351,681 



81,512 

1900 
1,047,795 
555,047 
492,748 
464 
14 

57,849 
6,779 

37,234 
8,348 



+ 77. 27 

+ 3 -97 

% 

- 4. 12 
2. 28 

- 6 -10 



- 5. 6 6 

- 31.71 
+ 5.60 

- 6. 42 



110,210 



Printed from the original 



406 



REMARKS ON E. JORDI'S BOOK, 
THE ELECTRIC MOTOR IN AGRICULTURE 



Ernst J o r d i, D e r Elektromotor in d e r 
Landwirtschaft. Bern 1910 

The author is a practitioner from an agricultural school 
at Riitti, Berne. This school itself uses an electric motor 
for farming operations. The author has collected data on 
electric motors in Swiss agriculture. Result: highly recom- 
mends that peasant co-operatives use electric motors. 

"At present, no other mechanical engine can match the 
electric motor's simple and reliable operation, insignificant 
wear and tear, great adaptability, instant readiness for 
use, minimal requirements in supervision and maintenance, 
and the consequent low overhead costs. . . . Production-wise, 
it will pay big farms to have their own motor in most cases. 
Medium and small farms are advised to purchase and run 
an electric motor co-operatively ..." p. 79. 

1 volt X 1 ampere = 1 watt 
kilowatt = 1,000 watts 
1 h.p. = 736 watts 

a. electric motor 
(4 h.p.) — 2 6 centimes 

b. manpower — 300 cen- 
times 

c. one-horse drive — 100 
centimes 

d. water (very cheap) a 
few centimes 

e. internal-combustion en- 
gine (4 h.p.) — 60 cen- 
times 



h.p. { 



Cost of 
electricity: 
"effective h.p. — hour with 
the use of" (p. 78) 



Consequently, the elec- 
tric motor is cheaper than 
anything (except water). 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



407 



The author reckons Switzerland's water-power (according 
to official statistics) at 7 2 2,600 h.p. Roughly % of 
a million h.p. (in a 24-hour day). Rather, up to 1 million 
= the work of 14-24 million men (p. 13) 

Written in September-October 
1914 

First printed in the 
Fourth Russian edition Printed from the original 

of the Collected Works 



408 



CAPITALISM AND AGRICULTURE 
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 128 

OUTLINE OF INTRODUCTION 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL CENSUSES 

The importance of America as a leading country of capi- 
talism. A model. Ahead of the others. Most freedom, etc. 

Agricultural evolution. The significance, importance and 
complexity of the question. 

American agricultural statistics. Decennial censuses. 
Similar material. 

Himmer as a collection of bourgeois views. In this 
respect his short article is worth volumes. 

The gist of his attitude: "family -labour" farms (or farmers) 
or capitalist farms. Main propositions. "Decline of Capi- 
talism"? 



VARIANTS OF PLAN 
I 

3 main divisions and 2 subdivisions. 

3 sections and 2 subdivisions (9 divisions) 



Cf. p. 4 of the extracts from the 1 9 00 edition: in 
1900 there were 5 divisions,* which is more reason- 
able. 



Population density. 

Per cent of urban population. 

Population increase. 



See p. 427.— .Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



409 



Settlement (homesteads). 
Growing number of farms. 
Increase in improved area. 
Intensiveness of agriculture. 

{capital 
fertilisers. 
Hired labour. 
Crops (agricultural). 
Yields. 

Average farm acreage and its changes 

{by divisions 
in time. 

Percentage distribution of total value of farms and value 
of agricultural implements + machines. 

Sale-purchase of feedstuffs and livestock products. 

Negroes in the South and their flight to the cities. Immi- 
grants and their urge to move to the cities. 

Hired labour in agriculture. 

Expenditures for wages. 

Occupation statistics. 
Owners versus tenants 

in general 

in the South. 
Mortgaged farms. Increase. 

Number of farms owning horses and changes. 
Number of farms (by groups) and changes. 
Acreage of improved land (idem) and changes. 
Dairy cattle (and its concentration). . . . 
Plantations in the South. 

Overall picture of industry and agriculture in their class 
structure and development. 

Three methods of grouping. N.B.) 
(1900) 

Latifundia and decrease in their acreage. 

II 

The main thing: three sections and 
A) 2 divisions of the North (New England + Middle 
Atlantic). . . . 



410 



V. I. LENIN 



Add: the prices of industrial products 

B) The South — "decline of capitalism". 

C) Summaries of acreage groups. 

D) Comparison of three types of groupings. 

settlement, 
latifundia. 

Owners versus tenants. 

Overall picture of agriculture and industry. 



ill 



1. Introduction. The 
Material. "Himmer". 

2. General essay 3( + 2) main 



importance of the question. 

sections (general 



characteristic) resp. 3-5 §§ 



(homestead) West 
(industrial) North 
(slave-holding) South 



Transition from homestead to 
settled areas 
(1 division) 
(1 division) 

3. Average farm acreage (1850-1910) 

4. Acreage groups. 

5. Ibid. Percentage distribution of total value and 
value of machinery. 
Groups by income. 

" " principal source of income ("specialities") 
Comparison of the 3 groupings. 
Expropriation of the small farmers. 
" summaries for the United States 
groupings _ mortgaged 

owners and tenants f farms, 

ownership of horses 
Hired labour in agriculture. 

11. Considerable decrease in the acreage of the latifundia. 

12. Overall picture. 



6. 
7. 
8. 
9. 



10. 



Further (after 13 §§) roughly: 
14. Expropriation of small farmers 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



411 



(a) flight from the countryside 
(j3) owners 

(y) ownership of horses 
(o) farm debt. 
15. Overall picture N.B. + 

((-\-cf. America and Russia, i f all the landX\ 
V\ g o e s t o t h e p e a s a n t s. )) 

15. A comparative picture of evolution in industry and 
agriculture. 

16. Summary and conclusions. 



add to § 3, the North 

% of large enterprises 



add: % of high-income farms 

under 3 acres 5. 2 N.B. 
3 to 10 0. 6 
10 to 20 0.4 
20 to 50 0.3 
50 to 100 0. 6 
+ prices of livestock 
Add: Latifundia, % of land 
1900 1910 
23. 6 19. 7 
+ value of land: 

7.!% 7. 6 % 

+ increase in livestock 
meadow + land: p. 6. 



VARIANTS OF TITLE 

Roughly. 



Capitalism and Agriculture in the 
United States of America. 

(New Data on the Laws Governing the 

Development of Capitalism in Agriculture.) 

New Data on the Laws Governing the 
Development of Capitalism in Agri- 
culture. 

Part One. Capitalism and Agriculture in the United 
States of America. 



412 



V. I. LENIN 



EXTRACTS FROM DIFFERENT VARIANTS 

I 

I. 

From corvee to capitalist rent. 
Marx. 

III. Size of capital investment in land. 



II 



"Summary and Conclusions" 

A) ( Similar material. 

V Range of nuances. 

B) "Seven theses." 



16. Summary and 
conclusions 



p. 20: 
-{-quotations 



III 

Size of country and diversity. 

Range of nuances, strands in evolution: 

3. a) Intensification due to vast industry. 

4. (3) Extensive farming (livestock breeding — hundreds 

of dessiatines) 
2. y) Settlement 

1. 8) Transition from feudalism to capitalism (slave- 
holding) 

s) comparative size of farms (?) 



1. 
2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 



Machinery 
Hired labour 

Displacement of small-scale by large-scale farming 

Minimisation of the displacement by acreage group- 
ing. 

Growth of capitalism as farms become smaller 
(intensification). 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



413 



Expropriation of small farmers 

("owners and tenants 
-J ownership of livestock 
I debts. 

Uniformity with industry (§ 15). 

IV 

10. Defects of conventional methods of economic inquiry. 

11. Small and big farms by value of product. 

11. More exact comparisons of small and large enterprises. 

12. Different types of enterprises in agriculture. 

13. How is the displacement of small-scale by large-scale 
production in agriculture minimised? 

V 

4. Average size of farms. 

"Z) e c I in e of c ap i t a I i s m" i n the South. 
U.S.A. the South, the North 

- + 
two divisions of the North, the West, the South 

5. "Disintegration of capitalism" in 
the North. New England + Middle Atlantic. 

6. Capitalist character. 

6. Groups by farm acreage. Overall result. 

7. Idem. The South. 

8. The North. New England + Middle Atlantic. 

9. The West. 

10. The capitalist character of agricul- 
ture. 

11. Groups by value (total value and value of machinery). 

12. Groups by income. 

13. Groups by speciality. 

14. Comparison of the three groupings. 

15. Expropriation. 

16. Overall picture. 

VI 

10. Shortcomings in the grouping of farms by acreage 

11. Grouping by income 



414 



V. I. LENIN 



12. Grouping by (principal source of income) speciality 

13. Comparison of the three groupings., 

{cf America and Russia, if all the land went \ t^t r> 
to the peasants J JN.-tS. 

VII 

California 

per acre 

1910 1900 
Labour 4.3 8 2.^ 

Fertilis ers 0.^9 Cos 

Understatement of the ruin of small-scale production when 
grouping is by acreage): 

the minority of prospering farms are lumped 
together with the masses of backward farms and those 
on the way to ruin, 

N.B. 

Add: 

among the high-income farms ($2,500 and over), there is 
a higher % of very small and small farms 
under 3 acres — 5. 2 
3 to 10 0. 6 
10 to 20 0.4 



20 to 50 0. 



50 to 100 0. f 



VARIANTS OF CONTENTS 
I 

Contents: 

1. General Characteristic of the Three Sections. The 
Homestead West. 

2. The Industrial North. 

3. The Former Slave-owning South. 

4. Average Size of Farms. 

"Disintegration of Capitalism in the South." 

5. The Capitalist Nature of Agriculture. 

6. Areas of the Most Intensive Agriculture. 

7. Machinery and Hired Labour. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



415 



8. Displacement of Small by Big Enterprises (cultivated 
land). 

9. Continued. Statistics on Value. 

10. Defects of the Grouping by Acreage. 

11. Grouping of Farms by the Value of Product. 

12. Grouping by the Principal Source of Income. 

13. Comparison of the Three Groupings. 

14. The Expropriation of the Small Farmers. 

15. Comparative Picture of Evolution in Industry and 
Agriculture. 

16. Summary and Conclusions. Pp. 155-161. 

End 

means: "rewrite heading" of § 

II 



Introduction 1-5 

1. General Characteristic of the Three Sections. 

The West. 5 

2. The Industrial North —12 

3. The Former Slave-owning South — 15 

4. Average Size of Farms (The South: "Disintegra- 
tion of Capitalism") —21 

5. The Capitalist Nature of Agriculture — 30 

6. Areas of the Most Intensive Agriculture — 39 

7. Machinery and Hired Labour — 51 

8. Displacement of Small by Big Enterprises, 
Quantity of Improved Land — 60 

9. Continued. Statistics on Value — 71 

10. Defects of Grouping Farms by Acreage —78 

11. Grouping of Farms by the Value of Product —90 

12. Grouping by Principal Source of Income — 105 

13. Comparison of the Three Groupings — 115 

14. The Expropriation of the Small Farmers —127 

15. A Comparative Picture of Evolution in Industry 

and Agriculture — 141 

16. Summary and Conclusions — 155 



416 



REMARKS ON AMERICAN 
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 

The most interesting thing American agricultural statis- 
tics provide — in novelty and importance for economic 
science — is the comparison of three groupings: by acreage 
(conventional); 2) by principal source of income; 3) by 
gross income — by value of products not fed to livestock 
(probably, gross cash income). 

The second and third groupings are a novelty, which 
is highly valuable and instructive. 

There is no need to say much about the second one. Its 
importance lies in showing the economic types of farm 
with a bias for some aspect of commercial agriculture. This 
grouping gives an excellent idea of the impossibility of com- 
paring various types of farm (by acreage), and so of the 
limits within which the acreage grouping can be applied 
(resp. the conclusions to be drawn from this kind of group- 
ing). 

To 1) Farms of these types cannot be compared by acreage: 
Hay & grain as the principal sources of income. Average 
size of farm — 159. 3 acres (see, pp. 7-8 of my extracts*). 
Average expenditure for labour — $76 per farm ($0. 47 per 
acre). 

Flowers & plants. Average size = 6. 9 acres. Average 
expenditure for labour = $675 per farm, $9 7. 42 per 
acre, that is, 9,742 -s- 47 = 207 times greater. 

Of course, the number of farms with flowers as the prin- 
cipal source of income is insignificant (0.i%), and that 
with hay & grain, very large (23. 0 %), but a calculation of 



See pp. 432-34.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



417 



the average would give a false impression. The number 
of cereal farms (hay & grain) is 200 (214) times greater 
(1,319,856 -f- 6,159 = 214), but their average expenditure 
for labour per acre is 1/207 of the figure for the flower farms. 

The same applies, with due alterations, to vegetables 
(2. 7 % of all farms; expenditure for labour = $1.62 per 
acre, with an average of $0. 43 ); fruits (1. 4 % of all farms, 
labour — $2. 40 per acre), etc. 

The cereal farms are large in acreage (159.3 acres on an 
average) but have low income (in terms of gross incomes — 
an average of $665 of gross income per farm. On the flower 
farms — 6. 9 acres — $2,991 of gross income per farm. 
Fruits — 74. 8 acres, $915 of gross income per farm, etc, 

Or take dairy produce. The farms are smaller than average: 
121.9 acres versus 146.6 — an d smaller than the cereal farms 
(159. 3 acres) but their gross income is higher: $787 (versus 
an average of $656, and $760 for the hay & grain farms). 
Expenditure for labour per farm = $105 (versus an average 
of $64, and $76 for hay & grain) and $0. 86 per acre, i.e. 
double the average ($0. 43 per acre). They have livestock 
valued at $5. 58 per acre (versus an average of $3. 66 ); imple- 
ments & machinery, $1.66 per acre (versus an average of 
$0.90). 

And that is not unique for the United States, but is 
the rule for all capitalist countries. What is the implication 
in the case of a switch from cropping to dairy farming? 

For example (a) 10 grain farms switch to dairy farming, 
(p) 10 farms X 160 = 1,600 acres 

120 (average dairy produce 
farm) 
= 13 farms 

The scale of production is reduced. The smaller farm wins 
out! 

Expenditure for labour 10 X 76 = $ 760 (a) 

(p) 13 X 105 = $ 1,365 (p) Almost 

tw ice > !! 

This means that the switch to dairy farming — as well as 
to vegetables, fruits, etc. — leads to a reduction in the 



418 



V. I. LENIN 



average farm acreage, to an increase in its capitalist expend- 
itures (= intensification of its capitalist character), and 
to an increase in production 

(gross income: a = 760 X 10 = $ 7,600 
(3 = 787 X 13 = $10,231) 

To 2) What are the limits for applying the grouping by 
acreage? Ordinary, grain, farms are in the majority. In 
America, hay & grain = 23%; livestock (extensive N.B. 
[mixed with intensive]) = 27. 3 %; miscellaneous = 18. 5 %. 
2 = 68. 8 %. Consequently, general laws may become appar- 
ent even in general averages, but only in the gross totals, 
wherever there is known to be no switch from old farms 
to new (but where does that happen?), from farms with 
a similar investment of capital per hectare (per acre). 

The great defect of American statistics is the failure 
to give combined tables. It would be extremely important 
to make a comparison of data on farms by acreage within 
the limits of one type of farm. That is not done. 

Now for the third, new type of grouping — by gross income. 

A comparison of it with the first, conventional grouping 
(by acreage) is highly instructive. 

The quantity of livestock (value) per acre. By acreage: 
there is a regular reduction, without a single excep- 
tion: from $4 5 6.7e per acre (< 3-acre farms) to $2. i5 
per acre (1,000 acres and over), i.e., some 200 odd times 
greater! This is a ridiculous comparison, because heteroge- 
neous magnitudes are involved. 

By gross income: there is an increase (with 2 not 
very big exceptions: when income is at 0 and at $2,500 
and > to a maximum) parallel to the increase 
in acreage (also with two exceptions: at 0 and at the mini- 
mum). 

Expenditure for labour per acre. 

By acreage. There is a reduction (with one exception) 
from $40.30 (< 3 acres) to $0. 25 (> 1,000 acres). 150-fold!! 

By gross income. There is a regular increase from 
$0. 0 6 to $0. 72 . 

Expenditure for fertilisers. There is a reduction by acreage 
from $2. 36 per acre to $0. 0 2- 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



419 



By gross income: there is an increase (with one 
exception) 

from $0. 01 to $0.08 (0. 06 ), 

implements & machinery per acre. 

There is a reduction by acreage 

from $27. 57 to $0. 29 

There is an increase by gross income (with one 
exception) 

from $0. 38 to $1. 2 j (0. 72 ). 

Average quantity of improved land. 

An increase by acreage from 1. 7 to 520. 0 
An increase by gross income (with one excep- 
tion) from 18. 2 to 3 2 2. 3 . 

The grouping by income combines the big and the small 
acreage farms, where they are similar in the level of capital- 
ism. The predominant importance of such a "factor" as 
land remains and stands out in the grouping, but it is seen 
to be (co)subordinate to capital. 

The grouping by income: the differences between the 
groups in expenditure for labour ($4 — $786) per farm, are 
tremendous, but are relatively small per acre ($0.06 — $0.72). 

The grouping by acreage: the differences between the 
groups in expenditure for labour per farm ($16 — $1,059) 
are less significant, but are tremendous per acre ($40. 30 — 
$0. 25 ) 

By acreage: income (gross per farm) by groups: $592 — 
$1,913 ($55,334), i.e. the differences are very small. 

Depending on whether you take gross income or acreage 
as the yardstick, the ratios between small and large farms 
(in America) turn out to be diametrically opposed (by 
the main indicators and by the most important one for the 
capitalist economy, namely, expenditures for labour). 

It should be noted that America's agricultural 

statistics shows up its one main distinction from continental 
Europe. 



420 



V. I. LENIN 



In America, the % of parcel (proletarian?) farms is i n- 
significant: 11.8% of farms under 20 acres (= 8 ha). 

In Europe, it is great (in Germany, more than one- 
half are under 2 ha). 

In America, agricultural capitalism is more clear-cut, 
the division of labour is more crystallised; there are fewer 
bonds with the Middle Ages, with the soil-bound labourer; 
ground-rent is not so burdensome; there is less intermixing 

of commercial agriculture and subsistence farming. 



421 



AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS* 

(pp. 1-12 of extracts) 

Pages 

(of extracts) 

1. number of farms in acreage groups, combined with 
grouping by income. 

2. idem in %% for both groupings, combined with 
each other. 

3. size of farms in divisions compared. 

4. nil. 

5. number of farms by acreage combined with the 
principal source of income. 

6. grouping by principal source of income — % of total. 
7 and 8 averages for farms by principal source of income. 
9-10 averages (and % of total) for farms by acreage 

and by income [[without combination]] 
11 and 12— nil. 



The most interesting aspect of American statistics is 
the combination (even if not consistent) of the three group- 
ings: by acreage, by income and by principal source of 
income. 

A comparison of the groupings by acreage and by income 
(pp. 10 and 9 of the extracts) clearly shows the superiority 
of the latter. 



* Twelfth Census, 1900. Census Reports. Volume V, 
Agriculture. Washington, 1902. 



422 



V. I. LENIN 



Acre 
(absolute 

The United States 





Number of 
farms 


Under 
3 


3-10 


10-20 


20-50 


Income: 


5,739,657 


41,882 


226,564 


407,012 


1,257,785 


$ 0 


53,406 


1,346 


5,166 


8,780 


12,999 


1-50 


167,569 


6,234 


38,277 


33,279 


45,361 


50-100 


305,590 


7,971 


55,049 


64,087 


89,424 


100-250 


1,247,731 


13,813 


86,470 


182,573 


454,904 


250- 500 


1,602,854 


4,598 


28,025 


89,116 


471,157 


500-1,000 


1,378,944 


2,822 


8,883 


21,295 


154,017 


1,000-2,500 


829,443 


2,944 


3,351 


6,412 


25,691 


2,500 and over 


154,120 


2,154 


1,343 


1,470 


4,232 


$ 0-100 


526,565 


15,551 


98,492 


106,146 


147,784 


-1,000 and > 


983,563 


5,098 


4,694 


7,882 


29,923 



Rough % of 
low-income 
farms (0-100) 


c: 9-i 


37 


43 


25 


12 




Rough % of 
high-income 
farms 

(1,000 and >) 


17. 2 


13 


2 


1-9 


2 





MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



423 



age 

figures) 



50-100 


100-175 


175-260 


260-500 


500-1,000 


1,000 
and over 


1,366,167 


1,422,328 


490,104 


377,992 


102,547 


47,276 


6,159 


12,958 


1,451 


2,149 


1,110 


1,288 


19,470 


18,827 


2,333 


2,290 


902 


596 


44,547 


33,168 


4,922 


4,197 


1,428 


797 


271,547 


176,287 


33,087 


21,061 


5,497 


2,492 


495,051 


358,443 


87,172 


53,121 


12,108 


4,063 


420,014 


492,362 


152,544 


97,349 


22,398 


7,260 


101,790 


310,420 


182,868 


149,868 


34,210 


12,089 


7,589 


19,863 


25,727 


48,157 


24,894 


18,691 


70,176 


64,953 


8,706 


8,636 


3,440 


2,681 


109,379 


330,283 


208,595 


197,825 


59,104 


30,780 




5 


4 


1-8 


2. 2 


3 


5 




8 


24 


43 


52 


57 


66 



424 



V. I. LENIN 



03 

-° y 

03 O 

02 

rj (1) 

m O 

'I! ^ 

cd 44-1 

02 
-rH 02 

PJ ft 

O 



w CD 



cd ,2 

c3 > 
<d 

03 ;rH 

>> "o 

^3 CD 

w ft 

02 03 

Pi o 

•p-H 

ft 02 

^ a 

2 u 

be 43 

•S3 ° 

a ^ 

M CD 

CD P* 
CD 

^ ^ 

° ^ 

fl ° 

a i" 

O ^ 

o 



O ^ CD 



— ^ 



© 10 
CN 



' o 

2 o 

O o 

LO - 



o o 

LO O 
CN LO 



o o 

O LO 
CN 



o 

LO 



u cd ^ 
cp o«£ 



c3 
CD 



C3 
CD 
Sh 
O 
CD 



s 

S 
a 



o 
© 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



o 
o 





CI 


o 






Oi 




^H 


© 




CN 




CN 


CD 
tH 


■J" 




CO 


tH 


CO 






o 


© 


© 


© 


CO 


CN 


CO 




CN 
CN 



o 

CO 



CN 
CN 



o 








CM 





CN 



O 

o 



CD 

-a 

n 



-a 

9 



© 

CN 



O 

LO 



o 

CN 



CO 
CN 



o 
o 



© 

LO 



CN 



o 

CD 
CN 



© 
O 



o 
o 

LO 
I 

o 

CD 
CN 



Sh 

© g 

i 2 

O w 

§ 8 
© 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



425 



O 1= CD 
© 5 > 



CD 
tUD 
CS 
CD 
Sh 
CD 

cS 
CD 



CD 
CD 
ft 

CO 

«n 
o 

CO 

0 

cS 

«H 
«H 

o 

Si 
CD 
rO 

0 
a 

CD 

+-> 

HI 
O 



CD 
CD 

Sh 
CD 
Ph 



i o 
© o 

o o 



CO ° 
CM ^ 



O 10 
©^ 



' o 
© o 
LO 3 



o 
lo 
■ 

o 

CM 

O 

CM 
I 

O 



o 

I 

CO 



CD 



CO 



CJ cS 0 
Ph 



ft 0 

o ™ 

o 



CM 



CD 
CO 



00 
CO 



CO 
CO 



CM 



CD 
CO 



OS 

d 



CN 



CO 

lo 



CO 

CN 



CTS 
CN 



O 
LO 



o © 
© 10 

tH CN 



o 

LO 



© 
o 



o 
o 

LO 

o 

LO 

CN 



CO 


ICO 


US 


O 


LO 
T — 1 


LO 

CN 


CO 


d 
© 


00 


CO 


CO 


o 


CN 


CO 
CO 


CN 


d 
o 


GO 


CD 


tr- 




LO 

CN 


OS 
CO 


CN 





CO 



o 

CO 



CN 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

LO 



o 
© 

LO 



o 
o 
o 



© > 

CS 











LO 


LO 




T — 1 


CD 




GO 


CD 






l> 




CN 


LO 






CO 




LO 


CN 




CN 


LO 






lC 






CN 




CO 






CD 








CO 




CO 


CN 










d 


00 




CO 






CO 


CO 




CN 


CN 










CI 


o 




LO 


CN 




OS 


T — 1 




CO 


CN 




t- 


CN 




CD 


CN 








00 






oo 




[ ~ 


LO 


CN 




o 
o 


O 


A 


LO 


o 




o 


a 


CD 


1 


cS 




© 


o 




o 


© 




LO 


O 



Value of products not fed to livestock 



426 



V. I. LENIN 



5 0 

■■Sg 

&c o 

■9 « 




o s 

CO 
CD 
> 



=8 
43 



o 
A! 



CD 
> 



o 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

lO 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

lO 



o 
o 
o 



o 
o 

lO 



o 
o 

lO 

I 

o 

LO 

CM 



o 
o 

LO 
I 

o 

m 

CM 



o 
o 



o 

lO 



o 
o 



LO 



o 
o 



o 

LO 
I 

o 

CM 



o 

lo 

I 

o 



> 

s 



o 



CD 

o 



o 



o 



c3 
CD 

o 



3 

o 
CO 
















































































































/ 




i 

/ 




i 


/. 




9 










































































1 














1 


j. 






































































































\ 








































































































































































































1 








\ 
































































































































































































n 


& 




























































































m 






























































































> 





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Page 12 of Lenin's manuscript, 
"American Agricultural 
Statistics". 
Between May 5 (18), 1914 
and December 29, 1915 
(January 11, 1916) 
Reduced 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



427 



In 1900 there were 5 divisions: 

1) North Atlantic = New England + Middle Atlantic 1910 

2) South Atlantic = idem 1910 

3) North Central = West + East North Central 

4) South Central = East + West South Central 

5) Western = Mountain + Pacific 



428 



V. I. LENIN 



Absolute figures 

Farms classified 



Principal source 
of income 


Total 
number of 

f £11*1X1 S 


Under 3 


3 and 
under 10 


10 and 
under 20 


20-50 


The United 
States 


5,739,657 


41,882 


226,564 


407,012 


1,257,785 


Hay and grain 


1,319,856 


1,725 


26,085 


59,038 


190,197 


Vegetables 


155,898 


4,533 


23,780 


23,922 


41,713 


Fruits 


82,176 


1,979 


10,796 


13,814 


22,604 


Livestock 


1,564,714 


13,969 


56,196 


81,680 


257,861 


Dairy produce 


357,578 


5,181 


15,089 


20,502 


59,066 


Tobacco 


106,272 


397 


5,827 


12,317 


26,957 


Cotton 


1,071,545 


997 


25,025 


112,792 


426,689 


Rice 


5,717 


123 


996 


614 


1,185 


Sugar 


7,344 


50 


345 


629 


2,094 


Flowers & 
plants 


6,159 


3,764 


1,387 


492 


355 


Nursery prod- 
ucts 


2,029 


121 


262 


307 


429 


Taro 


441 


171 


141 


47 


31 


Coffee 


512 


47 


200 


94 


68 


Miscellaneous 


1,059,416 


8,825 


60,435 


80,764 


228,536 


Total of under- 
lined — highly 
capitalistic 
crops 


724,126 


16,366 


58,823 


72,738 


154,502 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



429 



(p. 18, table 3): 

by acreage 



50-100 


100-175 


A H f AAA 

175-260 


£\ f A 1" A A 

260-500 


f- A A A AAA 

500-1,000 


1,000 and 
over 


1,366,167 


1,422,328 


490,104 


377,992 


102,547 


47,276 


294,822 


415,737 


152,060 


137,339 


33,035 


9,818 


on one 
oU,o (0 


AA,AvK> 


0,Ub9 


o,Uob 


olo 


oil 


15,813 


10,858 


3,061 


2,131 


781 


339 


384,874 


423,741 


156,623 


125,546 


38,163 


26,061 


90 814 


104 93? 


35 183 


20 517 


4 514 


1 780 


25,957 


21,037 


7,721 


4,836 


1,063 


160 


238,398 


164,221 


52,726 


35,697 


11,090 


3,910 


814 


810 


396 


385 


206 


188 


1,787 


1,029 


391 


380 


233 


406 


112 


43 


4 


2 






o on 




9b 


O C 

OD 


O O 


7 


ol 


Q 
O 


o 
A 


A 

4 


o 
A 


4 


30 


25 


16 


13 


7 


12 


281,953 


257,289 


76,756 


47,970 


12,608 


4,280 


166,120 


161,340 


51,939 


31,440 


7,651 


3,207 



430 



V. I. LENIN 



An extract from 

for a general characteristic of grouping 

% 



The United States: K=3 a» 



Number of farms 23. c 

Number of acres in 25. c 
farms 

Total value of farm 31^ 
property 

Value of farms & 35. 2 
improvements 

Value of buildings 24. ? 

Value of implements 28. 7 
& machinery 

Value of livestock 21. 7 

Value of products 26. £ 

Amount expended for 27. 4 
labour 

Amount expended for 14. e 
fertilisers 



2. 7 

1- 2 

2- 7 

2- 8 

3- 5 
2-8 

1- 2 

2- 8 

10.Q 



1.4 

0. 7 

2-i 

2-4 

2-4 
1-9 

O.7 
2. 0 

3.A 



> o 



27., 



Q a 



6. 9 



42. 2 

36. 6 

34.3 

33. 7 
30. 9 

51.3 
32. 8 
27. 8 

14.n 



7., 



12. f 



7-9 
7., 



l.o 



l.n 



1-n 



1.R 



0-8 
1.7 



5., 



18. 7 
10. 7 

5.4 

5.3 

4.« 



6.1 

12-2 

7.4 
22., 



Summary in 4 groups: 

1) □ = crops with a great excess in % of expenditure for 
capitalist farms. 

2) Cotton = special crops with little development of capitalism, 
omy forms; vestiges of slavery and its reproduction on a 

3) Livestock — a minimum of capitalism. 

4) Hay & grain = "medium" + miscellaneous. 

*) These, the most capitalist, crops are characterised by a 
age (3. 4 % of land with 6.3% of the farms), and a use of ferti 
the land). And it is these crops that grew fastest over 
cereals increased= + 3. 5 %, and under rice, +78. 3%; tobacco 

**) < = l ess than O.^/o. 

* This figure has been corrected to 45. 0 in the Fourth Russian edition of 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



431 



Table 18 (p. 248) 

by principal source of income 
of total 



0.« 



0., 



0., 
O.c 



0.! 



0., 



o., 



4., 



l.f 



3. s 



: S-g 

5 CO CC 

H ?H f— I 



O.c 



o., 



o. f 



0., 



0.. 



CP 3 

=* 2 
2; & 



0.1 



0.« 



0., 
0^ 



0., 



0., 



co 3 
o 



*) 18- E 
13. e 



10. f 



16. x 

14. r 



0 



10. 
12. 4 

10. 8 

17., 



2 


By specialty of 


Highly 

capi- □ 
talistic 


*) 
B *> «> 

to O 


medium (hay 
& grain + mis- 
cellaneous) 


slightly 3 
capitalistic 
(livestock + 
cotton) 


i-P-H O 
CO h 

Eh t*-a a 


12-5 


6-3 


41-5 


46. 0 


8-6 


3.4 


38. 5 


52. 9 


15. 3 


7-0 


42. 7 


42.Q 


14. 6 


7 „ 
'•3 


45. 8 


39. 6 


20. 6 


8-6 


40. 9 


38. 5 


20.! 


10. 7 


42. 7 


37. 2 


10-9 


3. 0 


31. 7 


57.4 


16. o 


8-5 


39.0 


35.Q* 


26. 6 


16. 3 


38. 2 


35. 2 


31. 7 


24. 2 


31. 8 


36. 5 



labour over the % of land. In other words, these are strictly 



Special economic relations (labour of Negroes, natural econ- 
capitalist basis). 



size of farm which is only about a little over half the aver- 
lisers which is 7 times the average (24. 2 % versus 3. 4 % of 
the 10 years (1899-1909): in that period the total area under 
+ 17. 5 %; sugar, + 62. 6 %; vegetables, + 25. 5 %, flowers, + 96. ± %. 

Lenin's Collected Works (see present edition, Vol. 22, p. 80).— Ed. 



432 



V. I. LENIN 



The United States 

Hay & grain 

Vegetables 

Fruits 

Livestock 

Dairy produce 

Tobacco 

Cotton 

Rice 

Sugar 

Flowers 

Nursery products 

Taro 

Coffee 

Miscellaneous 



Average value of 



Land per 
farm acre 



653 



Implements 
& machinery 
per 

farm acre 



All livestock 
per 

farm 



2,285 15. 



59 



133 0. 



90 



536 



3,493 21. 



93 



166 



2,325 35. 



68 



1,214 13. 



47 



•82 



45 0. 



53 



2,205 11. 



59 



12,829 35. 30 4,582 12. 



61 



4,5 5 0 6 5 6. 90 2 2 2 32. 



04 



,841 83. 



968 22. 



73 



266 3. 



26 



3,083 22. 



56 



48 



acre 
3 -66 



1. 06 50 6 3. 17 



138 2.^ 244 3. 74 



3,878 51. 82 175 2. 34 251 3. 35 



2,871 12. fifi 151 0. fifi 1,009 4. 



■45 



2,66 9 22. 05 201 1. 66 676 5. 58 



77 0. 85 235 2. 61 



176 2. 



212 l. n 317 1. 67 



957 2. 



63 



63 9. 



07 



228 2. 



79 



15 0. 35 107 2. 50 



63 0. 46 160 1. 



16 



1,317 12. „ 101 0. q4 291 2. 



•73 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



433 



The United States 

$ 



Value of all farm 
property per 

farm acre 


% 


Number of 
farms 




3,574 


24 -39 


100 


5,739,657 


All farms 


4,834 


30-34 


23-o 


1,319,856 


Hay & grain 


3,508 


53-85 


2.7 


155,898 


Vegetables 


5,354 


71. 5 4 


1. 4 


82,176 


Fruits 


4,797 


21- 14 


27-3 


1,564,714 


Livestock 


4,736 


39-12 


6-2 


357,578 


Dairy 


2,028 


22-5i 


1-9 


106,272 


Tobacco 


1,033 


12 -36 


I8.7 


1,071,545 


Cotton 


3,120 


16. 40 


0-i 


5,717 


Rice 


20,483 


56-36 


0.! 


7,344 


Sugar 


8,518 


1,229. 72 


0-i 


6,159 


Flowers 


9,436 


115-49 


less than 


2,029 


Nursery 


1,276 


29-73 


i/ 

710 


A A A 

441 


To vr* 

1 aro 


3,775 


27-53 


per cent 


512 


Coffee 


2,250 


21.Q7 


18.. 


1,059,416 


Miscellaneous 






2=100-0 








Vegetables 

Fruits 

Milk 


2-7 
1-4 
6-2 


Cereals 23. 0 
Livestock 27. 3 
Miscellaneous 18. 5 






2 = 10. 3 % 




68. 8 



+ 

Cotton 18. 7 

87. 5 % 
+ special 
12. 5 % crops 



100.Q 



434 



V. I. LENIN 



a s rt 



+ 



00 ~ 



CO O GO t- 
CO Tj< LO CO 



CO 
CM 
CM 



tH CO 



o o 



++ + ++++ + + + + + + + 



CD 



O 

o 

Pi 

•i-H 
C+H 

o 

CU 
O 

S-H 

E3 
O 

to 



03 
ft 

•i-H 

Pi 

•i-H 

Sh 

ft 

>» 

CD 



to 
cc 
o3 



Sh 
o3 
fa 



>T3 

V O H 

S3 0 
> 
<5 



03 _T2 CD ' 



GO " t> 

"3 2 ° 



-a 

1.2 
=i 0' 

cs 3 



CD CQ 

§ 0 

.■S S3 

fid® 

S o m 

® s 

CD O.S 

> o 



CO 
^3 



CD 



s 



e 

CD 

-e 



CN! 



I CO 
< CO 



CD S 

cm t. 

2*2. 

CD 

> t- 
< S. 



o ia 

CD CD 
t~ CD 



CD 



as ia 

lO CD 



CD 



CD CD 
C- O 



rQ 

CD 



CD CO 
00 CD 



CO c- 
CO CO 



CD ^ 

(N 23 

CM 



LO LO 
CD O 



0 



CO CM 



o 

CO 



o 



CD 



CD 



LO O 

CO 
CD Tt< 



LO 

CO 
CO 



LO 

CM 



CO 
CD 

LO 



o 



O CO 
OS CO 



o 



CO 
CD 
CO 



CM 



co 



CD 

o 



H LO 
LO cm 



02 
CM 



LO 
OO 
05 



° a 

r-Q 
O O 
HO 



CG 

be 
CO 



=8 



o 



CD 
CO 



3 

O 



3 



o 

CD 
CO 



CO 



o 
O 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 435 



The United 
States *: 


Low 
income 
farms 
under 

$ 100 


Non-capi- 
talist 
farms 
Income 
< $ 500 


Medium 
farms 
$ 500- 
1,000 


Capitalist 
farms *) 

High-in- 
come farms 
$ 1,000 
and > 


Number of farms . . . 


9-i 


58. 8 


24. 0 


17. 2 


Number of acres in farms 


5., 


33. 3 


23. 6 


43 <:1 


Total value of farm 


2 -5 


23. 7 


26.! 


50. 2 


Value of farm & improve- 


2-3 


22. 0 


25. 8 


52. 2 


Value of buildings . . 


2-6 


28.8 

o 


28. 4 


42. 8 


Value of implements & 


2-o 


25. 3 


28. 0 


46. 7 


Value of livestock . . . 


3. 2 


24. o 

o 


24.9 


51.Q 


Value of products . . . 


0. 7 


22.! 


25. 6 


52. 3 


Amount expended for 


0-9 




19. 6 


69.i 


Amount expended for 


1-3 


29. y 


26.! 


44. 8 



*) Farms with an income of > $1,000 must be 
as capitalist, because their expenditure for labour 
is high: $158-$786 per farm. 

Farms with an income of under $500 must be regarded 
as non-capitalist, because their expenditure for labour is 
insignificant: under $18 per farm. 



* The table was compiled by Lenin on the basis of the data in the 
table on pp. 436-37.— Ed. 



436 



V. I. LENIN 



% Table 

Classification by value of products 

$ 



The United States 

Number of farms 

Number of acres in farms . . . 
Total value of farm property . . 
Value of farm & improvements . 

Value of buildings 

Value of implements & machinery 

Value of livestock 

Value of products 

Amount expended for labour . . 
Amount expended for fertilisers . 



Total 



0 



0. 9 
1-8 

0. 7 

0-6 

O.o 



o... 



Average expenditure for 
labour (p. CXXVIII, table 
CXXII 



■•{ 



per farm 
per acre 



Average number of acres per farm 



Average expenditures for fer- * f per farm 
tilisers in 1899 * "^per acre 



Value of all livestock 



Value of implements & ma- 
chinery 



<j> fper farm 



per acre 

per farm 
per acre 



Average number of improved land per farm 
(acres) 



146. t 



536 
3 -66 

133 

0-90 

72., 



24 
0-08 



283. 2 
2 

0-oi 
840 

2 -97 

54 

0-19 



33. , 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



437 



18, p. 248) 

of 1899 not fed to livestock 













500- 


1,000- 


2,500 




1-50 


50-100 


100-250 


250-500 


1,000 


2,500 


and > 




2. 9 


5-3 


21-8 


27. 9 


24. 0 


14-5 


2.7 




1-2 


2. t 


10.! 


18. -l 


23. 6 


23. 2 


19.g 




0-6 


1-2 


6-6 


14. 6 


26. 1 


33-3 


I6.9 




0-6 


1-1 


6-o 


13. 7 


25. 8 


34.9 


^•3 




0. 7 


1-6 


8-6 


17. 6 


28. 4 


31. 5 


H-3 




0., 


1-1 

1 


6.Q 

y 


16. 4 


28. n 


30. q 

y 


15. 8 




O.r 


1.9 

A, 2 




14. s 

o 


24. 9 


29.0 


21. 7 

7 




1 


b 


5.Q 


15.= 

O 


b 


32. a 


20.0 

0 




0-2 


0. 4 


2-5 


7-9 


19. 6 


35.9 


33. 2 




u. 2 


U.g 


7 

'•9 


ia. 9 




97 


17 




4 


4 


7 


18 


52 


158 


786 




0-06 


0-08 


0-11 


0-19 


0-36 


0-67 


0-72 




62. 3 


58. 6 


67. 9 


94. 9 


143. 8 


235. 0 


1,087. 8 




1 


2 


3 


7 


10 


18 


63 




0-01 

Ul 


O.no 
uo 


UO 


0.Q7 


0-07 


0-08 


0-nfi 

UO 




111 


118 


167 


284 


539 


1,088 


4,331 




1-78 


2 -oi 


2-46 


3 -oo 


3-75 


4-63 


3-98 




24 


28 


42 


78 


154 


283 


781 




0-38 


0-48 


0-62 


0-82 


1-07 


1-21 


0-72 




18. 2 


20-0 


29. 2 


48. 2 


84. 0 


150. 5 


322.3 



438 



V. I. LENIN 



Classification by 



The United States 



under 

3 



Number of farms O.7 

Number of acres in farms . — 
Total value of farm property. O.4 
Value of farm & improve- 
ments O.2 

Value of buildings . . . . O.g 
Value of implements & ma- 
chinery O.3 

Value of livestock 1.2 

Value of products O.7 

Amount expended for labour O.g 

Amount expended for fer- 
tilisers O.4 

Expenditures for f per farm 77 

labour \ per acre 40. 30 

Average number of 

acres per farm l.g 

Value of products 

not fed to livestock, 592 
average per farm 

Expenditures for f per farm 4 

fertilisers \ per acre 2.33 

Value of all live- f per farm 867 

stock per acre 456. 73 

Value of imple- r , 53 

ments & machin- \ per larm 27. 57 

ery \ per acre ° l 

Improved land per farm 1.7 



q 

and 
under 
10 


1 n 
and 
under 
20 


9 fi 
z u 

and 

under 

50 


0 u 
and 
under 
100 


-inn 
1 u u 

and 

under 

175 


4 n 


7 1 
' • 1 


21 Q 


23 q 
io ■ 8 


24 q 




2'7 


7 n 


11. 7 

1fi <> 

ID. 6 


22. 9 

97 n 

z 1 .9 


0. 9 

9 - 
4.7 


1-8 

3 r 


7.2 
10.7 


16. 0 
2O.4 


28-i 

98 n 

zo.g 


1-2 


2-2 


9.0 


19. 0 


28. 9 


0- 8 

1- 2 


1-5 
2.5 


7.0 

10. 8 


14. 4 
18. 3 


25. 6 
27. 3 


1-1 


1-8 


6-2 


12.3 


23. 5 


l.R 


3.4 


14. Q 


21.7 


25.7 


18 
2-95 


16 
1-12 


18 
0-55 


33 
0. 46 


60 
O.45 


6-2 


14. 0 


33.Q 


72. 2 


135.5 


203 


236 


324 


503 


721 


4 

0-60 

101 
I6.32 
42 
6- 71 


0-33 
116 
8-30 
41 
2-95 


0- 20 
172 

5 -21 
54 

1- 65 


0-12 
326 

4-51 
106 

I.47 


1U 

0-07 
554 

4-09 
155 

1.14 


5. 6 


12. 6 


26. 2 


49.3 


83. 2 



Rough estimate: 

In 1910, 45.9% of the farms used hired labour. From 1900 
to 1910, the number of hired labourers increased by 
{roughly) 27-48%. 

Assuming that in 1900, 40% of the farms used hired 
labour. 

Take 40% of the medium, 24. 8 X 40% = 9. 92 . About 10%. 
Take 2. 5 times less from the small farms: 40^% = 

f = 16; 57. 5 X 16 = 9. 2 =9%. 

Take 3 times more from the big farms: 40X3 = 120%; 
17. 7 X 120 = 21.24%. 9%— 10%— 21%. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



439 



area in acres Amalgamation (by acreage) 





•1 7 £ 
1 I 0 


o a n 

L 0 U 


0 u u 








A 11 
All 












and 


and 


and 


1,000 


Tn+ol 


Un- 


under 


10C 


- 


175 






under 


under 


under 


and 


1 otai 


der 


100 


175 


and > 






260 


600 


1,000 


over 




20 


3.CF6S 












8-5 


6. 6 


1-8 


0-8 




11. 8 


57.5 


24 


8 


17.7 


Number of 
























farms 




If" 3 


15. 4 


8.i 


23. 8 




0. 9 


!o 7 - 5 


22 


9 


59. 6 


Land 




15.! 


15. 3 


5. 9 


7-6 




3-7 


28. 2 


27 


9 


43.9 


Value of land 




15. 9 


16. 4 


6.1 


7.4 




2. 9 


26.i 


28 


1 


45. 8 






13. 9 


12. 0 


4-0 


3-0 




7-1 


38. 2 


28 


Q 


32.9 






13. 6 


13.! 


5.i 


7-6 




3-7 


31. 7 


28 


9 


39.4 


Implements & 
















machinery 




13. 3 


15.2 


7-0 


14. 0 




3.5 


24.9 


25 


6 


49.5 






13. 7 


13. 6 


5-2 


6.7 




4.4 


33.5 


27 


3 


39-2 


Value of prod- 
























ucts 




14. 6 


17.J 


8-8 


13.7 




3-8 


22.3 


23 


5 


54. 2 


Expenditures 






















for labour 
























and ferti- 
























lisers 




12. 5 


10. n 


4. 2 


5.7 




5.3 


41.9 


25 


7 
1 


32. 4 




109 


166 


312 


1,059 
















0-52 


u -48 


U.47 


u -25 
















210-8 




001.9 


A 937 n 


140.6 














1,054 


1,354 


1,913 


5,334 


656 














14 


15 


22 


66 


10 














0-07 


0. 04 


0-03 


0-02 


0-07 














834 


1,239 


2,094 


9,101 


536 














3-96 


3-61 


3-16 


2-15 


3-66 














211 


263 


377 


1,222 


133 














1-00 


0-77 


0-57 


0-29 


0-90 














129.Q 


191.4 


287.5 


520.Q 


72.3 















Approximate: 

((1900: || 22. 3 1|23. 5 1| 54. 2 [% of expenditure for labour] 

X 40 

9.o+9.4+21. 6 =40% 
About: 11 + 12.3 + 17.7=40 



440 



V. I. LENIN 



Comparison of the 
1900 



By income 
[see p. 9] 



(Political-economic) 

significance of 
respective figures: 



Per cent of total 

(total of three figures in\ 
horizontal rows = 100 / 



J-SV.S 



farms 



.2<=> 

t3 O 
0 to 



Common and basic 
figures: 



Number of 
farms 
Acreage 



58. 8 
33. 3 



24.o 
23. 6 



17.2 
43.! 



Scale of produc- 
tion: 



Scale of 
production 



Value of 
product 



22., 



25. 6 



52. 3 



Level of farming; 
machinery, care 
of the land 



Constant 
capital 



Value of im- 
plements and 
machinery 

Expen- 
ditures for 
fertilisers 



25.3 
29.! 



28.o 
26.i 



46. r 



44. 



Capitalist charac- 
ter of enter- 
prise 



Variable 
capital 



Expendi- 
tures for 
hired labour 



U-3 



19. 6 



69.i 



% of farms 



1910 



% of all land 

implements 

and 
machinery 



See p. 435.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



441 



three groupings: 





2 

By acreage 
[see p. 10]* 


i 

By principal 
source of income 
[see p. 6]** 






Small (under 
100 acres) 


farms 

rj LO 

Iv 

^3 o 

at o 

ss 


Large 

(175 and >) 


Slightly 
capitalist 
/livestock \ 
\and cotton / 

Medium _,, 
/hay and \ g 
I grain— mis- J B 
Vrpll an poll tj / m 

Highly capi- 
talist 

/ spec A 

V^crops ) 


Commercial 
crops 

1 Index of extensive- 

2 ness of enterprise 




57.5 
17.5 


24. 8 
22. 9 


17-7 

59.fi 


46.o 41.5 12-5 
52. 9 38. 5 8. 6 




33. 5 


27. 3 


39. 2 


35. 0 *** 39. 0 16-o 


6 




31. v 
41. 9 


28 Q 
25.7 


39. 4 

32. 4 


37. 2 42. 7 20. t 
36. 5 31.8 31.7 


3 - 
4 


Index of 
intensiveness of 
enterprise 

- 




22. 3 


23. 5 


54. 2 


35. 2 38. 2 26. 6 


5 . 






5 


8-0 


23. 8 


18. 2 








1 


7-9 


23. 4 


58. 7 




2 

S 

L 


9. 9 

' 

7-5 

3-5 
SI- 7 
H.9 


28. 9 


41. 2 




1 

-12-5 =45. 0 
-16.0 =17. 5 

-20.! =11. 6 
-31.7 =10.9 





* See p. 439.— Ed. 
** See p. 431.— Ed. 
*** In the Fourth Russian edition of Lenin's Collected Works (see 
present edition, Vol. 22, p. 80) the figure has been corrected to 45. o- — Ed. 



442 



V. I. LENIN 



Thirteenth Census of the United States, taken in the 



Three main 
sections of the 
United States 



All farmland 



mill 

acres 



587. 3 30. 9 
562.1 29.5 

753. 4 39. 6 
1,903-3 100 -0 



(p. 30, table 2) 

Total population: 



1900- 
1910 
% of 

(mill.) (mill.) pop. 

1910 % 1900 % increase 



55. g 60. 6 47. 4 62. 3 17. 7 

29. 4 32. o 24. 5 32. 3 19. 8 

6. g 7.4 4. 1 5.4 66. 8 

92. o 100. o 76. o 100. o 21. o 



Urban 
population 



1900- 
1910 

(mill.) % of 

1900 1910 increase 



32. 7 25. 2 29. 8 

6. 6 4. 7 41.4 

3.3 1. 7 89. 6 

42. fi 31.R 34. 8 



Improved land 
in farms 
(mill, acres) 



of in- 

1910 1900 crease 



290 261 10. 9 

150 126 19. 5 

38 27 39. 8 

478 414 I5.4 



% of 
improved 
land 

(1910) 



60. 6 

31-5 

7-9 
100.Q 



(p. 34, table 3) 



% of 
land in 
farms to 

total 
acreage 

1910 1900 



7O.4 65.4 
63. j 64. 4 



14. v 12. 4 



46. 9 44 M 



% of 
improved 
land in 
farms 

1910 



70.4 
42. 5 
34.2 
54. 4 



% of 
improved 
land to 

total 
acreage 

1900 



49.3 
26. 8 

5-0 
25.4 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



443 



year 1910. Volume V. Agriculture. Washington 1913 



Rural 
population 

1900- 
1910 
% of 

(mill.) in- 
1900 1910 crease 



23. | 22.2 

22. 7 19. 9 14. 8 

3-5 2. 3 49. v 

49.3 44. 4 11. 2 



/o 

of urban 
population 

(1910) 



58. 6 

22-5 
48. 8 
46. 3 



Number of farms 
('000) 

% 
of in- 

1910 1900 crease 



2,891 2,874 0. 6 

3,097 2,620 18. 2 

373 243 53. 7 

6,361 5,737 10. 9 



All land 
in farms 



(mill. % 

acres) of in- 
1910 1900 crease 



414 383 8. 0 

354 362 -2. t 

111 94 18. 2 

879 839 4. s 



(p. 37, t. 4) 



Average acreage per farm 
all land: improved land: 



% % 
of in- of in- 

1910 1900 crease 1910 1900 crease 



143. 0 133. 2 7. 4 IOO.3 90 -9 10 -3 

II4.4 138 -2 ~ 17 -2 48 -6 48 -l i-0 

296. 9 386. 1 -23. x 101. 7 lll.g -9. 0 

138. t 146. 2 -5. 5 75. 2 72. 2 4. 2 



(p. 42, t. 7) 



Value or all 
farm property 



Value of land 
and buildings 



($mill.) % ($mill.) % 

of in- of in- 

1910 1900 crease 1910 1900 crease 



27,481 14,455 80^ 23,650 12,041 96. 4 

8,972 4,270 110^ 7,353 3,279 124. 3 

4,538 1,715 164. 7 3,798 1,295 193. 4 

40,991 20,440 100. 5 34,801 16,615 109. 5 



444 



V. I. LENIN 



Value of Value of Value of Value of 

land buildings implements livestock 

and machin- 
CS mill.) ($ mill.) ery ($ mill.) ($ mill.) 

1910 1900 % + 1910 1900 % + 1910 1900 % + 1910 1900 % + 

The North 19,129 9,369 104. 2 4,521 2,672 69. 2 856 517 65. 6 2,975 1,897 56. 8 

The South 5,926 2,562 131. 3 1,427 717 99. 0 293 180 62. 9 1,325 811 63. 5 

The West 3,420 1,127 203. 6 377 167 125. 0 116 53 119. 0 625 367 70.! 

The U.S.A. 28,475 13,058 118. i 6,325 3,556 77. 8 1,265 750 68.7 4,925 3,075 60.! 



Value ($ mill.) 



p. 538, 
t. 8 



p. 476, p. 494, page 507, p. 517, p. 520, 
t. 3 t. 21 t. 33 t. 41 t. 45 



of 
all 

crops 
(a) 

1909 

The North 3,120 
The South 1,922 
The West 445 
The U.S.A. 5,487 



of 


of 


of 


dairy 


wool 


poul- 


prod- 




try 


ucts 






(1) 






1909 


1909 


1909 


477 


23 


129 


114 


6 


61 


57 


36 


12 


648 


65 


202 



of all 



of 


of 


domes- 


eggs 


honey tic ani- 




and 


mals 




wax 


sold or 






slaugh- 






tered 


1909 


1909 


1909 


205 


3 


1,258 


75 


2 


414 


26 


1 


161 


306 


6 


1,833 



(My (My fig- 
figure) ures all 
all live- farm prod- 
stock ucts 
prod- (a + (3) 
ucts 

(P) 



1909 1909 

2,095 5,215 

672 2,594 

293 738 

3,060 8,547 



The same data ($ mill.) but for 1899 









(2) 










/ ■ 


The 


North 


1,812 


346 


18 


90 


103 


3 


1 data 


The 


South 


989 


97 


4 


40 


32 


2 


I not 


The 


West 


198 


29 


23 


6 


9 


1 


1 com- 


















V parable 


The 


U.S.A. 


2,999 


472 


45 


136 


144 


6 


\(p. 520) 









p. 560, t. 24 


Average expenditures per 
improved land in farms 


acre 
for 


% of 






% of farms 
reporting expend 
iture for labour 


labour 
1909 1899 


fertilisers 
1909 1899 


increase 
in expend- 
iture for 
labour 


The 
The 
The 


North 
South 
West 




55.! 
36. 6 
52. 5 


1-26 
1-13 
3-25 


0-82 
0-69 

2-07 


0-13 
0-50 
0-06 


0-09 
0-23 
O.04 


+ vo. 8 

+ 87.i 
+ 119.0 


The 


U.S.A. 




45-9 


1-36 


0-86 


0-24 


0-13 


+ 82. 3 
p.t.o. * 



Note: (1) The original give 2 = 656. But this is wrong. Exclud 
*See pp. 482-83.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



445 



(p. 43, t. 8) Average value of farm property per acre of land in farms 

($ and %) 

All farm Land Buildings Implements Livestock 

property and machinery 

1910 1900 %+ 1910 1900 %+ 1910 1900 %+ 1910 1900 %+ 1910 1900 % + 

66.4 6 37. 77 76. 0 46. 26 24. 48 89. „ 10. 93 6. 98 56. 6 2. 07 I.35 53. 3 7. 20 4. 96 45. 2 

25.31 11-79 114-7 16-72 7-08 136.2 4. 03 1-98 103. 5 0. 83 0. 50 66. 0 3. 74 2. 24 67. 0 

4O.93 l g -28 i23 -9 30. g6 12. 01 157. 0 3. 40 I.79 89. 9 1. 04 0. 56 85. 7 5. 6 3 3. 92 43. 6 

46.64 24.37 91-4 32. 40 15-57 108. 1 7. 20 4. 24 69. 8 I.44 0. 89 61. 8 5. 60 3. 67 52. 6 



p. 540, t. 10 
Percentage of value of all crops (1909) 



value 
of all 
crops 

% 



crops 
with 
acreage 
report- 
ed 



cereals 



hay tobac- 
and co and 
forage cotton 



vege- 
tables 



fruits 
and 
nuts 



2 

of 
fore- 
going 



100 


93.7 


62. 6 


18. 8 


100 


92. 8 


29.3 


5.i 


100 


82. 2 


33.1 


31.7 


100 


92.5 


48. 6 


15.Q 



O.9 


7-5 


3-3 


93.1 


46. 8 


I'* 


2. 6 


91.3 


0-0 


8.5 


15. 5 


88. 8 


16. 9 


7.6 


4-0 


92.1 



(p. 513, t. 12). 

Percentage of improved farmland (1909) 



100 


67. 8 


46. 2 


18. 8 


0-1 


1-5 


O.i 


86.7 


100 


63. 3 


32.1 


5.7 


2J.g 


1-5 


0.1 


6I.3 


100 


51.4 


24.1 


24. 2 


0-o 


I.4 


0-1 


49. 8 


100 


65.i 


40.Q 


15.i 


7-0 


1-5 


0-1 


63. 7 



ing (N.B.) home consumption — (2) Including home consumption 



446 



V. I. LENIN 



The United 

States 
All classes 
Farms operated by 

{owning en- 
tire farm 
leasing addi- 
tional land 



(p. 97, t. 1) 
Farm tenure. Number 
of farms ('000) 



1910 
6,361 
3,949 



1900 



,737 
653 



% + 
IO.9 
8-1 



Owners - 



3,355 3,202 4. f 



594 



451 31. 6 



Managers 
Tenants 
Ten- f share tenants 
ants \cash tenants 



58 59 -1.7 

2,354 2,025 16. 3 

1,528 1,273 20. 0 

826 752 9.9 



(p. 99, 
Average acreage 
per farm 



1910 
138.! 
151. 6 

138.6 

225.Q 



1900 
146. 2 
152. 2 

134.7 

276. 4 



924.7 1,481 
96. 2 96 
93. 2 92 

IOI.7 102 



% + 

- 5.5 

- O.4 

2. 9 
-18.6 

-37. 6 

- 0.! 
O.9 

- 1-2 



t. 3) 

Average improved 
acreage per farm 



1910 
75. 2 
78. 5 



1900 
72. 2 
76.0 



69.7 69.o 



128.4 125.7 



2U.9 
66.4 
69.4 
6I.3 



184.6 
61. 9 
65. 0 
56. 7 



% + 

4-2 
3. 0 

0.7 

1-9 

14. 8 
7-3 
6-3 
8.4 



(p. 105, t. 7) % distribution of farms 
(2 of vertical columns = 100) 



Owners 

Managers 

Tenants 



The Unit- 
ed States 

1910 1900 

62.4 63. 7 

0.9 1-0 
37.0 35.3 



The North 

1910 1900 

72. 4 72. 6 

1-2 1-1 

26. 5 26. 2 



The South 

1910 1900 

49.9 52. 3 
O.5 0.7 
49. 6 47. 0 



The West 

1910 1900 

83. 8 8O.3 
2. 2 3.4 
14.0 16-6 



p. 106, t. 9 



Average 



The North 
(«) (P) 
1910 1900 1910 1900 



139.8 133.0 93.9 88.4 
3OI.7 340.9 163.5 152-0 

144.9 124-5 115-0 96-4 



(p. 102, t. 6) Number of farms 
('000) 
1910 1900 1890 1880 



% of farms 
1910 1900 1890 1880 



Owners and 
managers 

Tenants 
share 
cash 

2 = 



4,007 3,712 3,270 2,384 
2,354 2,025 1,295 1,025 
1,528 1,273 840 702 
826 752 455 323 
6,361 5,737 4,565 4,009 



63. 0 64. 7 71. 6 74. 4 
37.Q 35.3 28. 4 25. 6 
24.0 22. 2 18. 4 IV. 5 
13. 0 13-1 lO-o 8.0 
100 100. fl 100. 0 100. 0 



(p. 141, 


Number of 


t. 27 


farms 


The 


('000) 


U.S.A. 


reporting 




domestic 




animals 




1910 1900 


Total 


6,035 5,498 


Owners 


3,794 3,535 


Managers 


52 54 


Tenants 


2,189 1,909 



* This was later pencilled in by Lenin. A separate sheet containing 
Leninism under the C.P.S.U. Central Committee. — Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 447 



(p. 115, t. 19) Number of farms ('000) and % + (— ) 



The North 
1910 1900 % + 



Total . . . 
Owners . . 

Owners . . 

Part owners 
Managers . 
Tenants . . 

Share tenants 

Cash tenants 



2,891 2,874 0. 6 

2,091 2,088 +0.! 

1,749 1,794 —2. 5 

342 294 16. 5 

34 33 2.9 

766 753 

483 479 0. 6 

283 274 3.3 



The South 
1910 1900 +% 



3,097 2,620 18. 2 

1,544 1,370 

1,329 1,237 7.5 

215 133 61. 5 

16 19 -13. 2 

1,537 1,231 

1,021 772 32. 2 

516 459 12.3 



The West 
1910 1900 % + 



373 243 53.7 
312 195 
276 171 



36 
8 
53 
25 
28 



61. 9 
24 49. 8 
8 7.3 
40 

21 14. 7 
19 47.7 



acreage per farm (a) all land ((3) improved land 



The South 
(a) (P) 
1910 1900 1910 1900 



149.3 162. 8 56. 4 55.4 
1,514.7 2,734.! 198.6 169. 4 
64. 5 71. 2 39.3 38.! 



The West 
(a) (P) 
1910 1900 1910 1900 



241.5 282. 8 84. 5 94. 5 
2,323.2 3,303.9 439. 1 363. 2 
313.i 337.4 151-5 148.3 



% of farms 
with live- 
stock to all 
farms 

1910 1900 

my calcu- 
lation 



94.9-95.8 

96.1—96.7 
89. 6 -9 1.7 
92.9-94.2 



(p. 145, t. 28) 
Farms with 
horses ('000) 

1910 1900 



% of farms 
with horses 

(my calcu- 
lation) 

1910 1900 



4,693 
3,216 
46 

1,431 1,376 



4,531 
3,107 



73. 8 

8I.5 
79.3 
60. 7 



79.0 
85.o 
81. 3 
67. 9 



% of farms 
with 
horses 

(my calcu- 
lation)* 



Total 
owners 

managers 

tenants 



(My calculation from 
Divisions, p. 145, t. 28) 

Number of farms with 
horses ('000) 



The North 
1910 1900 



.2,600 
,.1,873 
,. 29 



0/ 

/o 

89. 9 
89. 6 
91.i 



2,620 
1,901 
28 
691 



/O 

91.1 
91. 0 

91.8 



1,771 
1,075 
11 
685 



The South 
1910 1900 



0/ 

/o 

57.! 
69. 6 
44. 6 



1,694 
1,032 
14 
648 



% 

64. 6 
75. 2 
-5. 6 
52.7 
-8.1 



The West 
1900 1900 



320 
267 
7 
46 



% 
85. 9 



86. f 



217 
175 
6 
36 



% 
89. 3 



90. 0 



these calculations is at the Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism- 



448 



V. I. LENIN 



(p. 158, t. 1) Mortgaged farms 
1910 1900 
Number of farms owned . . 3,948,722 3,638,403 

Number of farms mortgaged . 1,327,439 1,127,749 



% 



33. 



31, 



0 



1890 
3,142,746 

886,957 

28., 



% of mortgaged 

farms 

p. 160 



The North 
The South 
The West 



41.c 
23. E 
28. P 



40. 9 
17. 2 
21., 



40. 3 
5. 7 
23., 



Number of mortgaged farms 
Value of land and buildings 

Total debt 

% of debt to value .... 



1,006,511 
6,330 
1,726 
27. 3 % 



$ mill. 



886,957 
3,055 
1,086 
35. 5 % 



With reference to this increase in the propor- 
tion of farms mortgaged, it should be borne in 
mind that the fact of mortgage debt is not neces- 
sarily an indication of lack of prosperity. There 
can be no question that American farmers general- 
ly were more prosperous in 1910 than at the two 
preceding censuses. The percentage of mortgaged 
farms is said to be highest in the most prosperous 
states, such as Iowa and Wisconsin. In some cases 
a farm is mortgaged out of need, in others for 
improvements, etc. (p. 158). 

The breaking-up of certain plantations into small 
farms — farms owned by their operators but mort- 
gaged for part of the purchase price — probably also 
N.B. has had something to do with the increase in 
the proportion of farms mortgaged in the South 
(p. 159). 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



449 



£00" 

to «5 " 
O QO 

8 CsT 

0> T -H - 
?H , 

<U S 
co CO 
CD 

£^ 

ps o 

CD +3 
CD S 

PI S 
"i 00 

CD 00 
"ftjC 
8- 
» >» 

S O 

o *> 

CO 
CD 



CO 

Oo" 
>— ( 

cs> 



CO 
5h 
CD 
Pi 



be 
u 

Pi 



o 

Pi 

o 

^ si 

■"^ ir. 
*> 

O II o 

2 w ^0 

00^ 



CD 
O 



CO 
CD 
O 

fH 

be 

CD 

CD 

Pi 
o3 



Pi 
03 
Pi 

CD 

Pi 
o3 

CO 

?H 

CD 
Pi 

O 

CD 
Sh 
O 



00 

CD 
Sh 
03 

CD 
fn 

CD 

+S "Pi 

- .A 
< 0> 
© 

a 0 ^ » 



CD 
> 
o3 

CO 
CD 



CO 

CD 3 
be o 



=-1—1 ^ 

O © Pi 

-a II 

CO & 
CD 

O CD 
be - 

PH 



o3 



CO 



f3 

Pi 

CD 



Pi 

03 CD 

- Pi 

CO 



+3 © : 
b» 1 
CO 



Pi 

CD 
Pi 

a 1 

CD . 

CO _ o 

O ^ 

^+ 

-Si >> 
o 



CO 

a 

03 

o 

H 

be 

CD 



CO 



t3 

Pi 

o3 



CD ' 



03 ; 



CD 



•as 

O Pi 
^* 03 

Pi to 

^ + 

a 

CO rQ 

■a s 



+ 



Sh 

03 



CD 

t> 

IT-' 
CD 



rH 03 

CO _ 

CD O 

be « 
CD Z 

CD O 

„ CD 

° a 

Jrl 2 

03 Pi 
co pj 

fH 1— I CD 

> -+J 



t3 

CD 
CO 

o3 
CD 

u 

CJ 

CD 

be 

03 
CD 

S-H 

CJ 

03 

a 

u 
o3 

'oS 
O 



CO 



+ 



05 
tH 

+ o 

„ be 

O CD 

be^ 1 

CD „ 

to 

LO + 
tH 

+ » 

Q^rPl 

CD 

^3 03 
CD CD 
CO Sh 
03 cj 

g.a 

CJ 

Pi >> 

••-I -l-i 

Sh 

CO CD 

a 

Sh 



ft 

o 

ft 



.a 0 

C(3 

Pi 

03 

rt 03 

> 
o 

- ftr2 

' 03 



CD 



CD 

+ 



o 



O CO 

CO • 

eg c/3 

> « • 

O h 2 



=1 
Zi 



=1 



o 
EH 



ca 
P) 



o 



3 



0 S O 

^ k » g o ^ O "oo^ 

S _T-e* K -rt 0 0 uoM^hO o 

* « o ^csg-i^^ 







0 




to 


O 


OS 






0 






OS 




CD 




OS 


lO 


tr- 


CD 




be 


O 


■rH 






CSl 




ca 


f-i 












re 


eg 


0 


OS 


ee 


LQ 


CD 






T — 1 








OS 


ca 




OS 


^ 




a-j 


CO 


s 




T — 1 






CM 










CM 


00 


lO 






0 














0 


CM 


C— 


CM 


CM 


CD 

fee 


CD 


OS 

T — 1 


C- 
tH 


c— 

T — 1 


CD 
OS 


OS 




+^ 








CNI 










CO 






QO 


> 
< 




1910 




c-i 


CSl 

T — 1 


CO 
GO 








vH 


CD 





^5 



EH 



2 a 



05 3 



o 
EH 



o 



450 



V. I. LENIN 



Concerning the role, importance and place of tenants 
vis-a-vis owners: 

Tenant farmers reported a much larger proportion of 
the value of land than of the value of buildings, implements 
& machinery, or livestock. This is largely due to the fact 
that tenant farmers in general are less well-to-do than farm 
owners and are less able to furnish their farms with expen- 
sive equipment (pp. 100-01). The average for the United 
States (1910) shows: the value of owners' land = 66. 8 % 
of all property, and that of "tenants" = 74. 9 % (p. 101, 
Table 5). 

Concerning the owners of farms leased, the authors 
(p. 102) refer to the inquiry during the 1900 Census, when 
the names of owners of tenant farms were studied. They 
say there was no concentration or "absentee landlordism". 
The owners of leased farms are for the most part former 
tenants "who have either retired altogether, gone into 
other business, or taken up farms in newer sections of the 
country". 



"In the South the conditions have at all times 
been somewhat different from those in the North, 
and many of the tenant farms are parts of planta- 
tions of considerable size which date from before 
the Civil War." In the South, "the system of oper- 
ation by tenants — chiefly coloured tenants — has 
succeeded the system of operation by slave labour" 
(102).* 



Concerning rent: 



The development of the tenant system 
is most conspicuous in the South, where 
the large plantations formerly operated 
by slave labour have in many cases been 
broken up into small parcels or tracts and 
leased to tenants. As more fully explained 
in Chapter I, these plantations are in 



* See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 26. — Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



451 



N.B. 



many cases still operated substantially as 
agricultural units, the tenants being sub- 
jected to a degree of supervision more or 
less similar to that which hired farm 
labourers are subjected to in the North" 
(p. 104). 



N.B 



\ 



"A very low proportion of tenant farms 
is ... shown for the Mountain and Pacific 
divisions, where it is doubtless attrib- 
utable mainly to the fact that those 
divisions have been only recently settled 
and that many of the farmers in them 
are homesteaders who have obtained their 
land from the Government" (p. 104). 



N.B. 



The whole Chapter II ("Farm tenure") does not contain 
any analysis of the causes of the growth (respective decrease) 
in the number of o w n e r s of land. These authors 
are bourgeois scum: they gloss over the most important 
thing (expropriation of the small farmers)!! 

Growth of rural population (1900-10) + 11. 2 % 

number of farms + 10. 9% (less) 

owners + 8.1% (still less) 

An obvious increase in expropriation!! 

But the increase is even more evident if we take the 
North, the South and the West. 

The total number of farms has gone up from 5,737,372 to 
6,361,502, i.e., by 624,130 (p. 114, Table 18), i.e., by 10. 9 
per cent. But in the North the increase is only 0.6% 
(+16,545 farms!!). This is stagnation. Moreover, there 
was also an absolute reduction in the number of 
farms in three out of the four divisions of the North, namely, 
New England, Middle Atlantic and East. In North Central, 
there was an absolute drop in the number 
of farms (by 32,000). Only in West North Central 
was there an increase by 4 9,000 (hence, in 2 = +16,500). 
But West North Central includes states like the two Dakotas, 
Nebraska and Kansas, where homesteading is still exten- 
sive (see Statistical Abstract, p. 28). 



452 



V. I. LENIN 



In general, the number of owners in the entire North: 

1900—2,088,000 
1910— 2,091,000 

+ 3,000 =0.!%!!! 

The entire North 

owners: part owners: 

1900 1,794,216 293,612 
1910 1,749,267 342,167 

—44,949 +48,555 



Thus, there was a reduction in the number of owners!! 

The number of part owners went up!! 

And this same North had 60% of all the improved land in 
the United States (1910)!! 

In this North, the acreage of improved land increased 
by 10.9%, from 261 million to 290 million acres!! 

In the West, the growth in the number of farms and 
the number of owners is understandable: the country is 
being settled, and there is a growing number of home- 
steads (see Statistical Abstract, p. 28 and the above 
quotation from p. 10 4, p. 3 of these extracts).* 

And the South?? Share tenants (mostly Negroes) 
there mainly (1) account for the growth in the number of 
farms. This means greater exploitation of the Negroes. 
Then (2), there is a growing number of owners. Why?? 
Apparently it is due to the parcellisation of the planta- 
tions. P. 265 (Table 8) shows that the acreage in 
the l,000-and->acre farms in the United States fell by 
30,702,109 acres (— 15. 5 %), including +2,321,975 in the 
North, and— 1,206,872 in the West. Nearly the whole falls 
to the South— 31,817,212 (— 27. 3 %). And this 
same South accounts, out of the total increase in the number 



See p. 451.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 453 



of farms ( + 624,130), for +477,156*) (i.e., the bulk, about 
3 /t), with a growing number of small farms: 

under 20 acres +115,192 
20-49 " + 191,793 

50-99 " + 111,690 

2 = 418,675 

The essence is the disintegration of the slave-holding 
plantations!! 

The So u t h (number of farms) 
White farmers coloured 

1910 2,207,406 890,141 
1900 1,879,721 740,670 

with the Whites having more owners than tenants, and 
the coloured vice versa. 



*) 1910: 3,097,547 
1900: 2,620,391 



+477,156 



454 



V. I. LENIN 





(p. 257, t. 1) 


(My abbre- 
viation) 


(p. 309, t. 18) 
Number of farms 




Number of farms 


Idem 


('000) 


with horses 




1910 1900 


1910 


1900 


1910 1900 


Total .... 


6,361,502 5,737,372 


6,361 


5,738 


4,692,814 4,530,628 


Under 20 acres 


839,166+ 673,870 


839 


674 


408,60+ 373,269 


20-49 .... 


1,414,376 + 1,257,496 


1,415 


1,258 


811,538— 834,241 


50-99 .... 


1,438,069+ 1,366,038 


1,438 


1,366 


1,116,415— 1,123,750 


100-174 . . . 


1,516,286+ 1,422,262 


1,516 


1,422 


1,302,086+ 1,260,090 


175-499 . . . 


978,175+ 868,020 


978 


868 


890,451+ 798,760 


500-999 . . . 


125,295+ 102,526 


125 


103 


116,556+ 96,087 


1,000 and over 


50,135+ 47,160 


50 


47 


47,167+ 44,431 



(p. 257, t. 1) 



(p. 257, t. 1) 


Increase in num- 
ber of farms 
(1900-1910) 


All 


land in farms 
(acres) 






increase 


% 


1910 


1900 


increase 


% 


Total .... 


624,130 


10. g 


878,798,325 


838,591,774 


40,206,551 


4-8 


Under 20 acres 


165,296 


24. 5 


8,793,820 


7,180,839 


1,612,981 


22. 5 


20-49 .... 


156,880 


12. 5 


45,378,449 


41,536,128 


3,842,321 


9-3 


50-99 .... 


72,031 


5-3 


103,120,868 


98,591,699 


4,529,169 


4-6 


100-174 . . . 


94,024 


6. 6 


205,480,585 


192,680,321 


12,800,264 


6. 6 


175-499 . . . 


110,155 


12. 7 


265,289,069 


232,954,515 


32,334,554 


13.g 


500-999 . . . 


22,769 


22. 2 


83,653,487 


67,864,116 


15,789,371 


23. 3 


1,000 and over 


2,975 


6-3 


167,082,047 


197,784,156 


-30,702,109 


-15. 5 



*) On the question of horse ownership, it should be noted 
not make up for the decrease in farms with horses. This 
The South showed the greatest growth— 1900 : 1,155,000; 1910: 
growth in the number of farms reporting mules fails to make 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



455 



(My abbre- 
viation) *) 

Idem ('000) 

1910 1900 

4,693 4,531 

409 373 

812 834 

1,116 1,124 

1,302 1,260 

890 799 

117 96 

47 45 



% of farms 
with horses 

1910 1900 

73. 8 79. 0 

48. 9 52. 4 

57. 4 66.3 
77. 6 82. 2 

86.5 88. 6 
91. 0 92-0 
93. 2 93. v 
94.! 94. 2 



Number 
of farms 

1910 1900 

100 100 

13.2+ U-7 

22. 2 + 21.9 

22. 6 - 23. 8 

23. 8 - 24. 8 

15.4+ 15. 1 

2-0+ 1-8 
0. 8 = O.g 



(p. 257, t. 2) 
% of total 

All land 
in farms 

1910 1900 

100 100 

1. 0 + 0.9 

5. 2 + 5. 0 

11. 7 - 11.8 

23. 4 + 23. 0 

30. 2 + 27. 8 

9.5+ 8. t 

19. 0 - 23. 6 



Improved 
land in 
farms 

1910 1900 

100 100 

1-7+ 1-6 
7. 6 - 8.0 
I4.9- 16. 2 
26. 9 - 28. 6 
33. 8 + 32. 7 
8.5+ 7.J 
6.5+ 5.9 



% of im- 
proved land 
in farms 

1910 

54.4 

90.g 

80. 6 

69. 0 

62. 7 

61. 0 

48. 8 

18. 7 



(ibidem) 








% increase 


Increase or 












decrease of 














share 


Improved land in farms 














(acres) 






Num- 


Im- 


Im- 


Num- 










ber of proved 


proved 


ber of 


1910 


1900 


increase 


% 


farms 


land 


land 


farms 


478,451,750 


414,498,487 


63,953,263 


15.4 










7,991,543 


6,440,447 


1,551,096 


24.4 


24. 5 


24.4- 


+ 


+ 


36,596,032 


33,000,734 


3,595,298 


IO.9 


I2.5 


10. 9- 






71,155,246 


67,344,759 


3,810,487 


5.7 


5.3 


5.7 + 






128,853,538 


118,390,708 


10,462,830 


8-8 


6. 6 


8-8 + 






61,775,502 


135,530,043 


26,245,459 


19.4 


I2.7 


19.4+ 


+ 


+ 


40,817,118 


29,474,642 


11,342,476 


38. 5 


22. 2 


38. 5 + 


+ 


+ 












+ 






31,262,771 


24,317,154 


6,945,617 


28. 6 


6-3 


28. 6 + 


+ 


+ 












+ 







that the growth in the number of farms reporting mules does 
growth = 1900: 1,480,652 (=25. 8 %); 1910:1,869,005 (=29. 4 %). 
1,478,000, i.e., 1900— 44. 1%; 1910— 47. 7 %. There, too, the 
up for the increase in the number of horseless farms. 



456 



V. I. LENIN 



The authors give no valid reasons for their grouping. 
"Government land has for the most part been sold 
approximately that amount" (p. 257). 

"As judged by improved acreage, which is probably 
N.B. less than 20 acres) are becoming of relatively less impor- 
This is the normal result of the fact that the very large 
the country, where agriculture is developing most rapidly" 
a relatively greater growth of the share of the big farms 





The North 








The 




Per cent 

Number 
of farms 


of total 

All land 
in farms 


Improved 
land 


7o of 
improved 

land 
in farms 


Per cent 

Number 
of farms 




1910 1900 


1910 1900 


1910 1900 


1910 


1900 


1910 1900 


2 


lOO.o lOO.o 


lOO.o lOO.o 


100.0 100.0 


70.i 


68.3 


100.0 100.0 


<20 


9. 5 + 8. 7 


0. 6 0. 6 


0-8 0. 8 


86.1 


86.3 


16. 2 14-7 


20-49 


13. 9 - 16. 0 


3-3 4. 2 


3. 6 4.7 


76. 2 


76. 2 


3O.9 29. 2 


50-99 


24. 2 - 26. 3 


12. 5 14-6 


13.5 16. 0 


75.3 


74. 6 


22.4 22.3 


100-174 


29. 5 + 29. 0 


28-i —29-7 


29. 3 -31. 6 


73. 2 


72. 6 


18.4 -19.8 


175-499 


20. 2 + 18-0 


38-i 36. o 


39. 8 37.3 


73.i 


70. 5 


IO.4 11.6 


500- 999 


2. 2 + 1. 6 


lO.g 7. 9 


9.Q 6. 6 


60. 8 


56. 9 


1-3 1-6 


1,000 &> 


0. 5 + 0. 4 


6-9 6.9 


4.i 3.4 


41.i 


30.5 


O.7 O.g 



2 

< 20 
20-49 
50-99 
100-174 
175-499 
500-999 
1,000 &> 



(ctd) 

The West 

% of 
improved 
land in 
farms 
1910 1900 



34. 2 
87. 3 
73.9 
62. 2 
37.i 
43.4 
46. 6 
22.9 



29.Q 
85. 0 
71.4 
57.4 
38. 5 
46. 7 
44.i 
17-2 



Increase from 1900 to 1910: (absolute 
The North The 



Number 
of farms 



All land 
in farms 



abso- 
lute 

16. 5 
25.i 
-57. 9 
55. 2 
18.i 
65. 9 
18. 5 
2.i 



% 



abso- 
lute 



% 



0. 6 30,725 8 

10. o 116 4 
-12. 6 —2,295 —14 
—7. 3 —4,072 
+ 2. 2 2,503 

12.7 19,720 

4O.4 12,430 

16. 4 2,322 



Improved 

land 
in farms 



abso- 
lute 



70 



0 28,573 IO.9 

8 95 4.5 

2 —1,743 —14. 2 

3 -2,708 -6.5 

2 2,435 2.9 

3 17,966 18. 5 

9 8,756 50. 6 
8 3,773 47.Q 



Number 
of farms 

abso- 
lute % 

477.2 18-2 

115.2 29. 9 

191. 8 25.1 

111.7 19-2 

42.7 8. 2 

18. 6 6.1 

-0. 8 -2.0 

-2.Q -8. 8 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



457 



N.B. only: 

or otherwise disposed of in quarter sections of 160 acres or 

the best standard, the smaller farms (excepting those of 
tance and the large farms of relatively greater importance, 
farms are found for the most part in the newer sections of 
(p. 258). This last explanation is wrong, for we find 
in such old divisions as New England and Middle Atlantic. 



N.B. 



N.B. 



South 

of total 

All land 
in farms 



Improved 
land 



% of 
improved 
land in 
farms 



1910 1900 1910 

lOO.o lOO.o lOO.o 

1-6 1-2 

8.4 6.7 

13. 6 U-2 
20. 8 + 18. 9 

24. 0 22. 2 

7-6 7.5 

23. 9 32. 2 



1900 
lOO.o 

3-2 
15. 8 
19. 4 
25. 3 + 25. 2 
24. 4 24.9 
5.5 6. t 
4. 8 5.4 



3.5 
16. 4 
20.Q 



1910 
42. 5 
93.3 
83.! 
62. 7 
51.6 
43. 2 
30.9 
8.5 



1900 
34. 8 
91.9 
82. 0 
60. 2 
46. 4 
39.! 
28.i 
5.9 



The West 
Per cent of total 



Number 
of farms 



All land 
in farms 



% of 
improved 
land in 
farms 



1910 1900 1910 1900 1910 1900 

100.0 lOO.o lOO.o lOO.o lOO.o 100.0 

16. 7 15. 5 0. 5 0. 4 1. 2 1. 0 

15. 3 14-0 1-6 1-2 3. 6 2. 9 

H-8 H-7 2. 9 2. 2 5. 3 4. 4 

27. 5 - 28. 6 14-0+ H-3 15-2+ 15-0 

19. 5 19-4 20. 2 15-6 25. 7 25. 2 

5.3 6.! 12.4 11. o 16. 9 16. 7 

3.9 4. 8 48. 3 58. 4 32.3 34. 8 



figures 
South 



1,000 farms or acres) 



All land 
in farms 



Improved 

land 
in farms 



The West 



Number 
of farms 



All land 
in farms 



Improved 

land 
in farms 



abso- 




abso- 




abso- 




abso- 




abso- 




lute 


% 


lute 


% 


lute 


% 


lute 


% 


lute 


% 


-7,583 


-2.1 


24,583 


19.5 


130.4 


53.7 


17,065 


18.2 


10,797 


39.8 


1,301 


29.5 


1,278 


31.5 


24.9 


66.5 


195 


58.8 


178 


63.3 


5,406 


22.2 


4,772 


23.9 


23.0 


67.5 


731 


66.8 


566 


72.6 


7,497 


18.5 


5,731 


23.5 


15.5 


54.8 


1,104 


52.5 


787 


65.2 


5,351 


7.8 


6,345 


20.0 


33.2 


47.8 


4,945 


46.8 


1,683 


41.4 


4,796 


6.0 


5,369 


17.1 


25.7 


54.6 


7,818 


53.5 


2,911 


42.6 


-118 


-0.4 


712 


9.3 


5.1 


34.5 


3,478 


33.8 


1,874 


41.3 


-31,817 


-27.3 


375 


5.5 


2.9 


25.3 


-1,207 


-2.2 


2,797 


29.6 



458 



V. I. LENIN 



Three main groups clearly stand out (see + and — for 
the United States): small farms (under 49 acres), medium 
(50-174) and large (175 and >). (These limits are also in- 
dicated by the "official" allotment ["homestead"] = 160 acres). 
Taking these three groups, we obtain the following basic 
%% results: 



The 
United 
States 


small 
medium 
(50-174) 
large 


% of 

1910 
Number Im- 
of proved 
farms land 

35. 4 9-3 
46. 4 41. 8 
18. 2 48. 8 


;otal 

19 00 
Number Im- 
of proved 
farms land 

33. 6 9. 6 

48. 6 44. 8 

17. 7 45.7 


Increase (or — ) 
1900-10 

% of 
% of im- 
farms proved 
land 

+ 

+ + 


The North 


small 

medium 

large 


23. 4 4. 4 

53.7 42. 8 
22. 9 52.9 


24.7 5.5 
55.3 47. 6 
20.0 47.0 


+ + 


The South 


small 

medium 

large 


47.4 19.9 

40.5 45.3 
12.4 34.7 


43.9 19. 0 
42.1 44. 6 
14.i 36. 4 


+ + 
+ 


The West 

The 
United 
States 


small 

medium 

large 


32. 0 4.8 
39.3 20. 5 
28. 7 74.9 


29.5 3.9 
4O.3 19.4 
30.3 76. 7 


+ + 




% of 

1910 

Number Im- 
of proved 
farms land 


;otal 

1900 

Number Im- 
of proved 
farms land 


1900-10 

Increase (+) 
or decrease (— ) 
% of 
% of im- 
farms proved 
land 


small 
medium 
(50-174) 
large 


58. 0 24. 2 
23. 8 26. 9 
I8.2 48. 8 


57.4 25. 8 
24. 8 28. 6 
17. 7 45.7 


+ 

+ + 


The North 


small 

medium 

large 


47. 6 17. 9 
29.5 29. 3 
22.9 52.9 


51. 0 21.5 
29.0 31.6 
20.0 47.Q 


+ 

+ + 


The South 


small 

medium 

large 


69. 5 39-9 
I8.1 25.3 
12.4 34.7 


66. 2 38. 4 
19.8 25. 2 
14.i 36. 4 


+ + 
+ 


The West 


small 

medium 

large 


43. 8 10-1 
27.5 15.2 
28.7 74.9 


41.2 8.3 
28. 6 15-0 

30.3 76. 7 


+ + 
+ 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



459 



The distinctive features of the three sections stand out 
clearly: 



The North: 1) The highest development of capitalism. 
2) Stagnation in the number of farms. 3) Reduction in 
the number and share of medium farms. 4) Growth 
in the number and share of large (and very small, 
but to a less degree). 5) Weak latifundia (> 1,000: 0. 5 % 
of the farms and 6.9% of the land). 



The South: 1) The lowest development of capitalism. 2) The 
greatest development of share-tenancy (49.6% are 
tenant farms). 3) Vast latifundia (> 1,000 acres: O.7 % of 
the farms and 23. 9% of the land; in the North 0. 5 % 
of the farms and 6.9% of the land). 4) Disintegration 
of these latifundia of the former slave-owners (1900- 
10: — 32 million acres— 27. 3 %). 5) The highest % of 
small farms (43-47%). Summary: from slave-owning 
latifundia to small commercial agriculture. 



x MOT ThOT? 

The West: 1) Tremendous increase in the number of 
farms: +53.7%!! Homesteads and small commercial 
agriculture!! 2) Vast % of land in large farms (76-75%). 
3) Very large latifundia (> 1 ,000: 3. 9 % of the farms 
and 48. 3 % of the land). 4) The lowest % of tenant- 
farmers and a reduction of it. 

% of improved land in the < 20 acre 
farms = 73-96% by divisions, and in the 
N.B. > 1,000 acre farms 6. 2 -43. 4 % by divi- 

(on the sions. 

question The contrast between these two sets of 

of "acreage percentages is the natural result of the fact 
statistics") that small farms throughout the country 
usually specialise in cropping, whereas 
large farms, which in some sections also 
specialise mainly in cropping, in other 
sections almost exclusively go in for stock 
raising (p. 264). 



460 



V. I. LENIN 



In the South there is a "process of breaking up great 
plantations into small farms, chiefly operated by tenants" 
(p. 264). 

The great development of small fruit and other farms 
on the Pacific coast, due, in part at least, to irrigation 
projects organised in recent years, is reflected in the increase 
in small farms of less than 50 acres in the Pacific division 
(p. 264).* 

Concerning the commercial character of stock raising, 
it is interesting to note the % of farms selling livestock, 
and the % of stock sold and slaughtered 



(% of all farms 
selling stock) 

Ratio (%) between 
number or domestic 
animals sold or 
slaughtered and 
number on hand: 



* a'oji 

3 I a 



J3l > 

+J _^ 



a a 



a o 



($ mill.) 



ttle 


a 






udi 


ves 


ves 


Ca 


xcl 


cal 


Ca 



CO 



The United 


















States .... 


1,833 


loo.o 


32. 0 % 


23. 0 % 


28. 9 % 


40.7% 


100.9% 


90.9% 


The North . . . 


1,258 


68. 6 % 


42. 4 % 


34. 5 % 


44. 9 % 


42.9% 


124.3% 


97-5% 


The South . . . 


414 


22. 6 % 


23. 3 % 


13. 3 % 


15-9% 


40. 7 % 


68. 2 % 


7V. 6 % 


The West . . . 


161 


8-8% 


23. 9 % 


13. 5 % 


13. 2 % 


33.4% 


61-8% 


87. 9 % 


New England. . 


30. 4 


1-7% 


34. 7 % 


34. 6 % 


16. 4 % 


43. 6 


320.8 


126.8 


Middle Atlantic 


89. 6 


4-9% 


36. 2 


48. 6 


23.0 


28. 6 


241.2 


123.5 



* See present edition, Vol. 22, p. 51.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



461 



C2 
-H 
CO 



o 

3.5 h fe th 

0 O T3 « S 

(3 g t i 

S,n <= 

(Dew q3 -rH 

s s 



t3 ° 

9 a 

CD 0 



tH 

o 
Pi 

O cd 

•p— I Qh 
• p— I 

> 

CD 

rH 

03 



m >> CO CTs 

«« bp u s 



3 





to 




CM 


o 


d 


d 


o 


4- 


+ + 


4- 


CO 


CO 


CO 


o 


CO 




CN 


d 


o 


CO 




CN 






CN 


d 


CO 




CO 


CD 














T — 1 




t- 


00 




CD 


tH 


CN 


O0 


CO 


T — 1 


rH 




TO 


L 






CO 


CO 




d 


T-H 




CO 




[— 


CO 




. 


l - 


o 


. 

CO 


LO 


d 


co 


CO 


c- 


CD 




■? 


co 


T — 1 


cn 


d 


id 


CO 


oo 


CO 


IT- 


[- 




CO 


CO 


o 




d 


CO 


"*ct* 


oo 


CO 




c— 


LO 


LO 




OS 


C53 


LO 




en 


°°„ 


CD 


CO 


TO 






- 




CO 


CO 


lO 








CO 




LO 


LO 


CO 


tH 




CN 


T — 1 




05 


LO 


LO 


OS 


CD 


T — 1 






co 




CO 




©" 


d 




o 






CO 


CD 


n 


LO 


TO 


CN 


id 


CN 


cm" 




o 


LO 


CO 


c— 


CO 


LO 








CN 


US 


CD 


o 


co" 


cn" 


CCft 


CO 


CD 


c- 


00 




lO 


Cft 


tH 


-*" 


cn" 


tH 




CD 


CN 


CN 


CN 




CD 


O 


LO 


Ol 




TO 






cn" 


d 


cd" 


00 


CO 


CM 


e— 


CN 


us 




<N 










id 


CN 


cm" 





01 ^ ^! 



►2 ° 



CD CD CD CO 



rJCJ 







CO 


o 


CO 






CN 


CN 


d 


3 










§ 


CO 

• 


cn 
• 




lO 






cT 






o 






LO 








CN 


d 


QJ 

i» 










!h 










(Ho 


CN 


cn 


CD 


CO 




• 


■ 


1 — 




0C 






cr. 


W 


d 


d 








CN 
















to 




CN 




CO 




(N 










o 


oq 


CD 


oq 


ses 


03 


tH 






^* 




CD 


GO 












o 


00 


o 




0C 




TO 






LO 








GO 




CN 


TO 


O 


Cft 




to 






CD 




CD 


US 


CO 


CN 




O 


CD 




' 




CO 


O 


d 








TO 






cc 
CD 




















"3 


LO 


■* 


CN 


a> 




o 


CN 


CO 










TO 


LO 




cd 


Cft 


CO 






CD 


LO 




TO 




oo 


TO 








,4 










co 


CN 


CO 


CO 




CN 


CO 




CD 




CO 


o 


oo 


SO 




o" 


o" 


to" 


d 




TO 


CN 


02 






LO 


CO 


CD 


CN 


rsei 




CN 


^h" 












o 




02 


02 


CD 


K 




O 


LO 




CXD 


c- 


CD 






CN 


o" 


T-T 


o" 




02 


o 


L~- 


CN 




c» 


CD 


L~- 


TO 






CN 







CO 
CN! 



CD 
TO 



0) ^0 ^ 



CD 

EH 



o 
C/3 

CD 

EH 



CD 

EH 



CD 

CO 
I— I 

■a} 

03 



CO 
CO 



GO 
TO 



CD lO 03 CO 

d d cn 



^ CN CO CN 

TO d CO CN 



CD CO CN C- 

tO CD 00 
C~ C~ C— 



CO 00 CN O 
CD CD t> ^ 







TO 






CD 


CD 


o 


TO 


swin 


o 


,335, 














"cS 












CD 


o 


LO 

c~ 


fi 






• i-H 


as 


th" 


is 




LO 


CO 




TO 



TO O 

Tt< LO 



Cft -tH 

LO ^J 1 LO 

O °°„ °°„ 

4 o" d 

t~ TO TjH 



CN 



CD 

Eh 



3 

o 
CO 

CD 



CD 

Eh 



462 



V. I. LENIN 



he 


'05 










and 


and 




th 






=s 






o 




CO 






CD 


CO 




CD 




ra 


CO 




+H 


Sh 




+H 


O 




co <d 




.Pi 




'a 


'3 




0 


o3 


>o 


cti 


ft 




f3 




a ts 




03 


CD 


co 








CO 




ne 




+n 

CO 




T 


CD 




a 


toe 


No 


CO 


CO 




CD 


live 


ws: 


(th 




CO 


CNJ 




>> 


05 


0 


rH 






'cti 




c 






CD 




03 


O 




e 


B 


to 


O 


rH 




o 


03 Oi 




5rH 


tH 


A 






+H 


5h 






CD 


me 


O 


ft 




CD 




sw 


CD 


bO 


rC 


03 




fH 






CD 






> 


O 


03 


c\> 








CO 






data 


ata 0 


03 

CD 


CD 


Q 




CO 






he 


CO 


CO 
CD 


H 


We 


mu. 



co js ' M 
CD +3 O 
*h 

ft O »H 

!*! 



03 T3 
53 03 
O ^03 

CO ^ CD 

CO CD r-^M 

" Pi 



CD 
















CD 


CJ 


.Pj 






'o3 


Pi 


a 


o3 


CD 






rH 




CO 




CD 


CD 


CO 

fH 




0 


id 



CO 1 

■> 

CD 

=2 



*1 rr- 

& 6UD 

^ Pi 

w W 
03 



^^PJ 
Pi 



co 

CD 
Sh 
P 

CD ^ ^ 
H rS CD 

ISO 



C(H ^ 

^ be 

cu 

e & 

S.g 

^ *> 

co e 
o G 

CJ Co 



0 



o 0- 



CJ 

CO 



CD r-i 



bo 

i 0 



SO 



10 Ol CD rH O 10 
CO GO W CN t-H O 

I I I I I 



000000 
000000 

co q_ q_ o_ q o_ 

cxT cn 00" of j-T j-T 

CO CM r« OS CN 



+ 



Pi 

O 
03 

>> o 
§ 03 

* — ' CJ 



CO 



C2 

o 

CO 



CO 

-do 
o 
be o 

- 

'-3 -H 0 

O nOJ 



Cti 
KH 



o o 



. -J o o o o 
o o o o o o 
o O o O " 



O 00 

rH C~ 



o" co" o" S 
rJ cn rj ^ 



^ t- o CM 

^ ^ O CO CO H H 

H . ^ o n ra co ^ 



lO rH CO CN O c- O 

d) CO CO t- CO CO t- 

03 CO o H ^ CD CO 

co" 3 Oj" <5 w cn 

H CO |M g CD O O) 

CO 00 L CN 00 

-* ^ rH 



C7i rH CO 
CO CcO 1> rH C7i CO 
X CO CO CO N O) H 

o* £2* S o" ' 
2 o co 

rH O^ CN 
10" ^ rH 



CDS 

co cn 



3 



-a 

CD 

'3 C° rH C73 C73 

CCS ^ rjn 03 

2 cc V 660 

EH <M ^ O 



O 

I 



O 
O 

o_ 

CN 



+ + + + 



o 
o 



++++++ + 



cnco'locoooo CO 

+ + + + + + I + 

D-lOCftrHOlCOCO 03 

06 ai 10 ^ 06 n d cn 

c- H/ CD co 00 ai a) 00 



o in h o co co O) co 
ooio^cococnoo 00 



^>*aioio^co cn 

rlcOINiOCOOO) CO 
>o CO 00 TH CN 00 
HH 

+++++++ + 



CO 



03 
CO 



CO 

o 

cn" 



C35 



o A 

O rjj 

rng ^ 8 



"X3 



I 



ft 
ft 



CD 

CO 

•X- 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



463 



° Oi lO H f « ^ H l> lO 

fflciN r£ ^ go as" r£ ^ 

Cp^^CO'-'-'CMCD^^^ 
[> CM 

^ ++++++++ 

j^^COvHCOvHCOcOCOO 

r, H CO iQ ^ C?) O r-^ in 
~ CO " " " 

\ — I CO CM CO (M (M Cft 



0 

O c>2 



o * 

0 o 

01 CM 



(M ^ 1> CO CD ^ 

(M H ^ M OD H 

^ ^1 O M ca O CO 

LO ^ co" go' co" cm cm 

CO ^ CO H O ^ W 

« ^ lO ^ CO 



+ + + + + + I I 

l>^l>t~-stHCNC0iO 

^vHOCO^^HGOLO 



3 



a t- o io ^ 



CO ^ ^ CO 
r— O CD CM CD 
O O ffi (M © ffl 



& tn ^ °° CM ^ ^ GO 
v ' O rvi 

2; 



H OJ ^ 
c~ CO 



-3 



+ + I 

CO CM CM 
tH CO 

O CD t-T CO CM i 
Cft O Cft in i 
CO CM CD CO i 



+ + + + 

O -H CO CO IO 

T I LO £•— r — I OO 

TT< O C- CO CD 



^ co co 

O CO CO Oi CO 
»i ^ 05 rH C55 ^ 



LO °„ 



COCC^I>^COI>iO 
CO CD O cm lo CM CO 
t- OS CM^ t~ ^ CO CD^ 

CO CM oo t- CO CO 
CO CO t>l O [- CD CM ^ 
O CD 0:1 ^ ^ CO ^ 



COO^COLOCOCDLO 
-COO^^COt~iOM 

^oicmO^olocm^loco 
w co 00' cm' t— ' lo' cd xtT ^-T 

CD^CNCO^CMCO^rH^ 



CP — . ^ CD CM LO 
d ^ lO CO ^ OJ 

Hc5^ m , - ^ 

^^CM^^H^COCO^ 

^lO^^^COrHH 

CO 



' O GO CM 
1 (M Ol O 
1 I> ^ CO 



0 rJn 

3 Eh 



CM 



a3 as 

g o 
— - o 



A 

° 2 -* OS 02 «8 

w O T ^ ^ OT S 



^fOC0<M00<M<M00 



^ m h h 

CO 



CO 01 
CD ^ 

^ +++++++ 

cpo cJiaiaicococ-riiN 

^^rH^t^COxPt^t^Oci 
^CJi^^NCOOJfNl 



CD 



CM 





Co 


O 


co 


CD 


CO 


CO 


c— 


LO 










CD 


0 


00 


CD 


CO 




CO 






0 


CM 


CD 


10 


CO 


CM 


CO 


CD 


c— 


to 




0 


CO 


c— 


CO 


CO 


■^H 


T — 1 


■^H 


CM 


"erf 




co 


0 


CM 


CM 


CD 


* — I 


0 




CM 






' — 1 


uO 


CO 


C— 


LO 


LO 


CO 






B 


+-> 




CM 
















"3 


O 






















CO 








O 


^ 


lO 




LO 


CO 


0 


CD 


0 


CD 


CD 


CD 


LO 


CO 


CO 


c— 


c— 




A 




CO 


C— 


CO 


CD 


CM^ 


ir- 


C- 


CD 


GO 


EH 


co 


co' 


LO' 


O 




TJH 


CD 




0' 


CD 




T 1 


CM 


O 


O 


OO 


LO 






CM 


S 






CD 




CO 


CD 


LO 


CO 






0 






CM 
















-a 












































"3 












































0 






LO 


•o 


CO 


CD 


CM 


0 


T 1 


CO 












LO 


OO 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CD 




0 


CM 


CO 


CO 


LO 


' — 1 


CO 


CO 




=> 




0 


CD 


CD 


T — 1 


CO 


CO 


T — 1 


LO 


CM 


"3 




Oi 
■^H 


CD 
C— 


* — I 
CM 


CO 


CM 
C— 


' — 1 

CO 


10 




T — 1 


> 


+j 



qj LOCDCOGOLOCO^^ 

h 0 cqhq:o:^coioco 

U tH ^l 00 . 0 ^ O CO M 

co co CD ^h" co" co" c— " co" TjT 

rHCD(Mi>i>cOl>COvH 
t~ CM CO CD CO 10 



q 0-1 co h lo ^ r- co co 
^^coco^^mio^co 



+ + + + + + 1 

q-, mioiotoiowoo 

^^CC^O^COOCNICD 
CftCOLOCOcOCOcOtr---^' 
CM ^ CM CM CM 



COCDCOOLQO^HC— 

LO LO CO CO GO CO CM CM 
COCOOCO^COCMO 
CO 'H (N lO CD ^ ^ 



* +++++++ 

CD C-~lOCD^HO}lOOCN 

_S o 

0:00 ^h^goo-^^h 




^010108 

w <=> 1 V "* 01 S 

V CM ' 1 1 g 



464 



V. I. LENIN 



be 

a 



o 
& 

0) to 



+1 



0 3 

C8 



3? 



o 



be 
0 



o 
p. 



o 
25 



EH 



3 
O 

rjl 
<D 

EH 



EH 



LO CO t-H 

H io cq 

I I 

rW LO 



«D -H IN rH W 



I I I I 

CO CC LO o 



aicqcoc^cccocno 



COot^COcOt—cOoO 
<X) CO (M UD rH 



COtr^t-^O^tr^CMOS 



CO CO iO ffl 

v| CO ® l> (N 

OS Os" lq" C— 

^ CO co to 



GO 
tr- 
CC 


CM 
O 


OS 
OS 


o 

CM 

LO 


OS 

LO 

GO 


OS 
C— 
r* 


as 


CD 
t— 

o 


CO 
OS 
CD 


GO 

CD 


CD 

T — 1 


^h" 
O 


as 
as 

CO 


as 
r* 

CM 


CD 
CO 


t — i 

CM 


















659 + 


+ 

LO 

C— 
CO 


LO 

o 

GO 


,226 + 


+ 

o 

CSl 


+ 
r* 

t-H 


I 

LO 
LO 
O 


1 

as 
*<* 

CO 


1,771, 


CO 
GO 
tH 


CO 


LO 

CO 


-rH 
tH 
rH 


CD 

LO 

CM 


LO 

CO 


CO 

T — 1 



O CO CD 



OS CD OS O LO 
OS CD O t~~ 
LO CM CO xH 



as cm c- 



O H 



+ 1 I + + + + 

OS CD OS LO CM OS OS 

H ^ O (M CM tC 

H CO lO H CO CM 

o o rH >o t- cm -rjT 

CO CO ^ o to H 

rH CO CD CO LO 



OS OS 

H <m os 



V © 



^3 O O lO 
0 10°^ 



A 

s s 1 08 

■ OS 0 

o o 

o °„ 

LO T-l 



t-vHHCOt-fflcoo: 

^- , OCM-^ H OOCMCO 

+ I + + + + I + 

HMt-HCnCOHQ 

t>ocooi(N^mto' 

COcOtr-cOOSOSOSGO 



Eh 

COCMcOOSLOt—COcO 

COOOOCOLOOO 
COCDCOOSOSOSOSOS 



c<5 

-a 



CJ3 

PI 



o 



Ol CN CN ^ Oi 
OS LO CO CD CO 
rfi .— -« .1—, r--— -*-n 



t- TJH xH 

O CD 10 

to ^ 

OfT CO ^H QS OS CM OS 
H CM N \J< CO H 



OSCMCOCDCMCOOSOS 
^COCO^O^'^'- 1 '^ 
vH^CO^OiWO^ 



rH ^ LO 

CO ^ CO CD 



^ cm 

■<H T — I 



^OtOlMCNCN^CM 
^LOCOOSrHCOCOO 
oo^ OS C""^ CO OS O ^ CO 
LO CO lo~ o" tr~ go" 

MfQ^ic^lr-COH 
GO "^t 1 \)( CN 

+ + + + + + I I 

IOCDt~©IO H COffl 

ocmOocm^d^c^ 

CD LQ CN rH GO ^ <0 

tjT Lf-T vh' o" co r-T 
^ to ID io w 



CM 



CM 



LO OS 

LO LO 

CD CO 



LO CD OS 
rH tH OS 
^ LO CM 



CO OS OS 



CO ^ 
l^- L — 

M CO > 



^H O CM O 



Cr— OS ^ rH 



LO CO 

3 2 



(M rH 

O C7i 
CO tr- 



^ "2 © 

CM " CO 
CO ® t- 



^ t> O CO 
CO rH o (M 
© rH CO 



A 

^. oi 2 tg 

<=> cn cn S cn 

V o o o io o g 

io <= t- =5 - 



MATERIAL 



ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



465 





o 






CM 










OS 


OS 






c— 






t-h" 






o 


CO O 




CO tH 


LO CO 




c- © 


OS GO 


1—1 






OS 


CO CO 


LO 


1—1 


O -H 


7 — 1 7 — 1 




cnT 





^ CO 
°5 OO 



m 




CD 




w 




%4 


o 


o 


m 






CO 


CD 


A 


Sh 


EH 






erf 

B 








O 








at 




-a 




s 

=1 




25 





o 
S5 



EH 



to 


o 


tH o 


co tr- 


CO 




CO 




CO OS 


t- CO 


OS 


CO 




CO tH 


CM OD 


CO 


cm 


^ co' 


CO T ' 


LO CO 


tr~ 




LO CM 




OO LO 


O 


CM 


co oo 


o °° 


7 — I CM 








7-T 





nj 



CM CO » tM CO CO OO ^ 

vn co co im co h cn co 

t^CO QO lO O O CO ® 

co o a^^T'^'^H os as 

' r— ' CO 7 — I 7 — I ^M C*~ GO GO 
CO CM IT- CFl 10 00 <M 
vH vh'cO CO 



<3j OS CI OS °© 

CXI OS tH tJh OS 0 
\/ O O O lo o o 
v CM LO O tr- O ° 
TH tH LO ^h" 



o 



OO CM LO 
CM tr— rH CO 
Q LO CM CD O 
^ CD OS CD CM 
te OS CO ^ CO CO 
J? i-l OO 

£ + + + + 



LO *H OS CM 

CD CM 
CM CM CO ^ 

o co't-Tco" 

GO LO "H CM 
CM t — I t — I 7 I 

+ + + + 





CO 


It— CO 


o 


tr- LO CO 


GO 


CM 


as CO 


CO 


LO LO LO 


LO 


CM 


CM CM 


tH 


r~- co cm 


o 


tH* 


CO^ 


O 


CM oO LO 




C— 


CM LO 


o 


CD lo CO 


CO 




7 — 1 xH 


CO 


CO "H t— 1 



3 
O 
CO 



.£ EH 



6 



LO 
LO 
LO 


,187 


CO OS 
LO CO 
GO CM 


c— 
o 


LO 

tH 

7 — 1 


c- o 

C- OO 

CD CO 


CM 
CO 
CM 


CM 
CD 
CM 


716. 
898! 


7 — 1 


o 

LO 

as 


CO 
OS 














+ 


+ 


+ + 


+ 


+ 


+ 1 


,368 


O 

o 

LO 


CM O 
tr- CO 
CO CO 


c— 

LO 


as 
as 

CM 


,737 
,943 


GO 
GO 

CD 


376. 


OS 

CO LO 

O CM 


,418 


,194. 


CM 


LO 




7-TtH 


tH 


tH 









o 


LO 




CO 




^ i as 






LO 


CO 


LO CM 


tr- 




t- ^ 






LO 




GO tr- 


as 


CO 






o 


CD 


OS 


ee" co' 


c— 




CO tH 




o 


CO 


GO 


<*}H LO 




CD 


GO O 




as 


OS 


CM 


CO 




t— 


CO x— 1 


Eh 








CM 




CO* 




o 




















+ 


^ 


1 + 


+ 


+ 


++ 


CD 




CO 




as lo 


LO 




O CO 




GO 


CM 


CO OS 


o 


LO 


CO LO 




o 


^ 


CM 


O LO 


c— 


o 


LO CM 


H 


7 — 1 


CD 


GO 


o" 


CD 


OS 


C-"<3 




OS 


OS 


t- 


CM tr- 


iO 


CD 


r~ CM 




7-H 


LO 


CM 


CO CO 


c— 










CO 




CM 









^ as os 
0 as as os os 05 
cs, ^ as x-t ^ as 0 

W O O O lo o 2 
V CM LO O tr- O °„ 



ascocoo^-i^asco 

CD CO CO OS ^ CO OS m 
CMC0CMCM O OIr-^ 



Eh 



OS ^H tH tH LO CM CO 



as cm co as cm cd lo 
as^t ,t ^cM^- , tr-asco 

lo ^1 CD O -st^ir- as 
tH rH CM (M OO OS CO CO*" 



ooascoLotr-astr- 

■^OCMCMasCOcOCO 

^ co as 00 t^-HO o i>co 

^* , tr-* , ^-TcD CO CM C— lo" 
^° lo tr- xh tr- CO co CM 
CO CM CM rH 



3 

O 
CO 



p. 



o 
25 



CM 


CM 


as 


CM 


CM 


10 


^ CO 


GO 


O 


10 


GO 


t- 


CO 


CO x^ 


CO 


^ 


10 


IO 


t- 


CO 


LO tH 


GO 


CM 


LO 


O 


O 


CD 


CO ^ 


t- 


O 


CO 


c— 


CM 


0 


CM t-H 




tH 




CO 


CO 


CM 




T-l 

















CO 


CO 


O 


CO 


as 


GO 


LO O 


0 


t- 


TP 


O 


c— 


LO 


IO 


as ^ 


0 


LO 


tr- 


as 


0 


CM 


CM 


tr- lo 


as 


CD 


CD 


GO 


CO 


x — 1 


CM 


O CO 


tH 


OB 


CM 


CD 


O 

tH 


as 


tH 



^coLoas-^^coco 
o cm as o co co ir- o cm 
vh oco^LOLOLoasco 

°^ os lo" =o co" as" ^h 

LO CM CO rH CM rH 
CO H v-l 





A 


as as 1^ 




1 1 1 


0: 0 


000 


>oo<= 


CM LO O 


L~ O ° 


tH 


LO 



466 



V. I. LENIN 



(p. 270, t. 11) Average value per farm ($) 

Implements 

All farm Land Buildings and Livestock 

property machinery 







1910 1900 1910 1900 


1910 


1900 


1910 


1900 


1910 


1900 




2 


9,507 5,030 6,618 3,260 


1,564 


930 


296 


180 


1,029 


660 




< 20 


2,849 1,875 1,334 919 


1,213 


728 


98 


71 


205 


157 




20-49 


3,464 2,118 1,961 1,212 


992 


579 


138 


92 


374 


235 


The 


50-99 


5,772 3,455 3,602 2,128 


1,279 


773 


223 


146 


667 


408 


North 


100-174 


9,713 5,416 6,696 3,538 


1,622 


994 


318 


203 


1,077 


682 




175-499 


17,928 9,342 13,369 6,451 


2,209 


1,349 


484 


290 


1,867 


1,253 




500-999 


27,458 15,196 21,172 10,275 


2,558 


1,792 


733 


434 


2,996 


2,694 




1,000 & > 52,989 28,805 40,631 17,481 


4,068 


2,528 


1,198 


643 


7,072 


8,153 




2 


2,897 1,629 1,913 978 


461 


274 


95 


69 


428 


309 




< 20 


838 483 450 240 


237 


132 


27 


20 


124 


92 




20-49 


1,217 673 734 393 


230 


125 


42 


29 


212 


126 


The 


50-99 


2,237 1,171 1,390 692 


407 


218 


81 


52 


350 


208 


South 


100-174 


3,692 1,818 2,415 1,099 


608 


328 


128 


78 


541 


313 




175-499 


6,742 3,414 4,608 2,138 


1,023 


608 


219 


132 


893 


536 




500-999 


14,430 6,908 10,423 4,431 


1,780 


1,056 


453 


285 


1,775 


1,136 




1,000 & > 47,348 26,807 36,390 15,660 


2,897 


1,930 


1,065 


1,211 


6,996 


8,006 




2 


12.155 7,059 9,162 4,639 


1,009 


690 


310 


218 


1,673 


1,512 




< 20 


5,025 2,953 3,342 1,523 


867 


507 


108 


79 


710 


844 




20-49 


7,359 3,578 5,727 2,544 


912 


560 


202 


123 


518 


351 


The 


50-99 


9,404 4,358 7,386 3,101 


967 


570 


263 


162 


789 


524 


West 


100-174 


7,205 3,763 5,375 2,343 


665 


445 


221 


153 


944 


823 




175-499 


14,111 7,667 10,844 5,184 


1,082 


790 


398 


282 


1,788 


1,412 




500-999 


27,662 14,601 21,206 10,006 


1,749 


1,176 


722 


456 


3,986 


2,963 




1,000 & > 


74,186 44,972 55,110 29,443 


3,206 


2,402 


1,384 


915 14,486 12,212 




2 


6,444 3,563 4,476 2,276 


994 


620 


199 


131 


774 


536 




< 20 


1,812 1,139 956 564 


605 


375 


56 


42 


195 


158 


The 


20-49 


2,103 1,280 1,284 750 


474 


303 


76 


55 


270 


172 


United 


50-99 


4,175 2,489 2,649 1,536 


848 


532 


156 


106 


522 


325 


States 


100-174 


7,313 4,022 5,021 2,590 


1,182 


724 


241 


155 


869 


554 




175-499 


13,955 7,175 10,291 4,872 


1,734 


1,059 


390 


234 


1,540 


1,012 




500-999 


23,208 11,714 17,644 7,842 


2,174 


1,402 


639 


376 


2,751 


2,094 




1,000 & > 


56,757 31,799 43,047 19,530 


3,330 


2,206 


1,196 


987 


9,185 


9,077 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



467 



Average value per acre ($) 

Implements 

All farm Land Buildings and Livestock 

property machinery 

1910 1900 1910 1900 1910 1900 1910 1900 1910 1900 



66.46 37. 7 7 46.26 24. 48 10. 93 6. 98 2. 07 1-35 7. 20 4 -96 

308. 8 4 193. 5 6 144. 5 5 94. 82 131. 44 75. 19 10. 59 7. 35 22. 26 16. 19 

100.67 6O.41 56. 98 34.57 28.83 16-52 4. 01 2. 62 10. 85 6. 69 

77.96 46.66 48. 63 28. 74 17. 27 10. 43 3. 0 i I.97 9. 0 1 5. 6i 

71.26 39.75 49.13 25. 96 H-90 7. 29 2.33 I.49 7. 90 5. 00 

66.96 35. 00 49.40 24.17 8.16 5 -05 1-79 1-08 6. 90 4. 69 

41.24 22.90 3I.79 15-49 3. 84 2. 70 l-io 0. 65 4. 50 4. 0 6 

27.14 13-80 20. 82 8.37 2. 0 8 1-21 °-61 °-31 3. 62 3. 90 



25.31 11-79 16-72 7.08 4 -03 1-98 0. 83 0. 50 3. 74 2. 24 

73.36 42.16 39. 37 20. 91 20. 77 II.51 2. 35 1. 72 10. 88 8. 02 

39. i 8 21. 12 23.58 12-33 7. 39 3. 91 I.35 O.91 6. 8 i 3. 97 

32.30 16-80 20.07 9.94 5.88 3.13 1-17 0-74 5-18 2. 99 

28. 08 13-78 18-37 8.32 4. 6 3 2. 49 O.97 O.59 4. 12 2. 37 

25-66 12-92 17-46 8-09 3. 8 8 2. 30 0. 8 3 0. 50 3. 38 2. 03 

21-96 l°-68 15-86 6. 85 2. 7i 1. 63 0. 69 O.44 2. 70 1- 76 

11-69 5. 2 8 8.99 3. 08 O.72 0. 38 0. 2 6 °-24 1-73 1-58 



40-99 18-28 30. 86 12-01 3. 40 I.79 1-04 °-56 5. 6 3 3. 92 

595.60 333.61 395. g7 172. 03 102. 66 57. 31 12. 85 8. 89 84. 12 95. 38 

230.4 2 1U-59 "9-32 79-35 28.55 "-46 6.33 3. 82 16. 22 10. 96 

28.79 58.80 101-15 41. 8 5 13-24 7. 69 3. 60 2. i8 10.81 7.07 

47-67 24.71 35.56 15-39 4. 40 2. 92 1. 4 6 l-oo 6. 24 5. 4i 

45.77 24. 71 35.17 16-71 3.5i 2.54 I.29 O.91 5. 8 o 4. 55 

39.79 20.89 30.50 14-81 2.52 1.68 1-04 0-65 5. 73 4. 24 

20.Q8 9.50 14.92 6. 2 2 0. 8 7 °-51 0-37 °-19 3. 92 2. 58 



46.64 24.37 32. 40 15-57 7. 2 0 4. 2 4 1-44 °-89 5. 6 0 3. 6 7 

172.89 106. 90 91.22 52.92 57.73 35.19 5. 37 3. 96 18. 57 14. 83 

65.55 38. 74 40.Q0 22.72 14-77 9. i6 2. 36 1. 65 8. 42 5. 2 i 

58. 22 34. 62 36. 94 21. 28 11. 83 7. 37 2. i7 I.47 7. 28 4. 5i 

53.97 29.69 37.Q5 19-11 8.72 5. 35 1. 78 l. u 6. 42 4. 09 

51.45 26.74 37.95 18-15 6.39 3.95 1. 44 0. 87 5. 6 8 3. 76 

34.76 17-70 26.43 U-85 3. 26 2. i2 0. 96 O.57 4. 12 3. 16 

17.Q3 7. 58 12-92 4.66 1-00 O.53 0. 36 0. 2 4 2. 76 2. 16 



468 



V. I. LENIN 



Note: 

"...In the Mountain and Pacific divisions farms 
of 100 to 174 acres show a lower average value 
of buildings per farm than those of 50 to 99 acres. 
This condition is probably due to the fact that 
the farms of 100 to 174 acres in these divisions 
consist in considerable part of homesteads recent- 
ly taken up by settlers who have not had time, 
or perhaps have not accumulated means, to con- 
struct expensive buildings" (p. 271). 



Home- 

steds 

in 

the 
West 



"...The high averages (value of all farm pro- 
perty — for small farms) in these two divisions 
[Mountain and Pacific] are partly due to the 
presence of numerous small and highly cultivated 
fruit and vegetable farms, many of which are 
irrigated" (p. 272) 



Small 
farms 
in 
the 
West... 



On the question of crop yields: 





Average yield pe 


r acre 


(bushels) 


(p. 486, t. 14) 


(p. 485) 




















Dairy 




















cows 




(P- 


584, 


(p. 593) 


(P- 


603) 


Milk produced 


(1909) 




t. 


IB) 










(gall 


ons) 


ave- 
















average per 


rage 




Corn (1) 


Wheat (2) 


Oats (3) 


cow 


per 




















farm 




1909 


1899 


1909 


1899 


1909 


1899 


1909 


1899 




United States . . . 


25. 9 


28. t 


15. 4 


12. 5 


28. 6 


31. 9 


362 


424 


3-8 


New England . . . 


45. 2 


39. 4 


23. 5 


18. 0 


32. 9 


35. 9 


476 


548 


5-8 


Middle Atlantic . . 


32. 2 


34. 0 


18. 6 


14. 9 


25. 5 


30.9 


490 


514 


6-1 


East North Central 


38. 6 


38. 3 


17. 2 


12. 9 


33. 3 


37. 4 


410 


487 


4-0 


West " 


27. 7 


31. 4 


14. 8 


12. 2 


27. 5 


32. 0 


325 


371 


4-9 


South Atlantic . . . 


15. 8 


14-1 


11.9 


9. 5 


15. 5 


11.7 


286 


356 


2-1 


East South Central 


18. 6 


I8.4 


11. 7 


9. 0 


13. 4 


11.1 


288 


395 


1-9 


West " 


15. 7 


21. 9 


11. 0 


11.9 


21. 4 


25. 8 


232 


290 


3-1 


Mountain 


15. 8 


16. 5 


23.! 


19-2 


34.g 


30. 4 


339 


334 


4. 7 


Pacific 


24. 0 


25. 2 


17. 7 


15. 6 


35. 3 


31. 4 


475 


470 


5-1 



(1) corn. 1909: 20.6% of all improved land. 

(2) 9.3% " " " " 

(3) 7.3% " " " " 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



469 







pa 




oS 




Cj 




















<3 




CP 




1 — ! 
~ 








+ 








PS 




ca 




"Si 


CO 






W 


"ca 

Eh 


c* 


a 


ca 


CD 








'a 


+n 




Eh 
O 


Sl 


22 


CD 








a 




a 




a, ts 


CD 


a 


CO 


ca 


Is 




CD 


CO 




a 






CO 




B 




0 




cj 




+H 




co 








S 




CD 












e_ 




0 




% 




CD 








+n 




PS 





Eh 

CD 

-a 



a 

o 

Eh 

CJ 

a 



>> 

ca 

a 

o 



CO 

© ca 



>> 




ca 








CO 




a 




o 




Eh 




CJ 












"cS 






CD 


M-H 


bo 


O 


ca 




Eh 




O 


CD 


^ — i 










(va 


an 



I 

CO 



CD 
S 

o 



ft 
o 



CJ 




-+H 




CD 


CD 


s 


~o 


o 


C3 




Is 


ca 


CD 


CD 


a 


^3 




CO 








e 




O 




CD 


=HH 




o 


CO 








CO 


Is 


CD 




CO 




CO 


0, 


ca 




Eh 


CD 




-=S 




EH 













hi 


o 


CD 


CD 


Eh 


Eh 


CTj 


ca 




V 


CD 


CD 


Eh 


Eh 


cj 




ca 


ca 


Eh 


Eh 


CD 


CD 


ft 


ft 






CO 


CO 


Eh 


Eh 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CO 










■+H 


+H 


Eh 


Eh 


CD 


CD 


=HH 






T3 


n 


a 


ca 


ca 


Eh 


Eh 




=1 


O 


o 


rO 


rQ 


ca 


ca 






a 


ox 



rQ 

ca 



bo 

CD 
> 



CD 



CO. 



>> s=! 

3 CD 



ft 

o 
a 



=1 
ft 
o 

ft 

o 

HI 



T3 

ca 



o 
rd 



o 

I 

CO. 



o 
o 

Ci 



o 



CD 

d CD 



O 



^ .a 



CO -rH 

I I 

a 3 

1 § 

Ph S 



in 





CD 




a 




to 


e 








CO 
CN 




&o 


CD 








ts 


a 


EH 


0 






the 


trac 




a 


CO 




3 







bo 



CO 



C3 s^ 
CO 



«5 



k ca 

CD *H 

o % 

CD 



CD a> 



Eh Eh 



lO O 



h3 h3 



3 

o 
CO 



EH 

CO 

13 

cS 
cb 
+s 

CO 
<B 

o 

w 



o 

CO 

T — I 

II 



T3 

ca 



o 





Eh 




^H 




a 




CD 




o 


OS 




a; 


rd 


Sh 




as 


Eh 




O 




z; 


ai 




a; 




+3 


CO 


CO 


CD 


CD 




B 




o 




rd 


PS 




o 


~Q 


CO 




"> 






0 




CO 




CD 


ca 


c 




0 


CO 










-c 


CO 




CD 


E> 


S£ 


0 






CD 






CD 










US. 








EH 





ca 



o 



PS 

CD 

o 

^H 

Sl 
o 
CO 



o 



ca 

a 
o 
co 



470 



V. I. LENIN 



CO ■ 



CO Oh CO 
d *^ CO 

1.1 I 

- co a 

CO Qj 



< 



§ 2 fl 

-° S~ 

a » o 
3D 

CU <D -i-i 

3 » 
o r-e°a 
co cs 7~ 

co 

*-< 5 o x 
Bh^h 





CO 




o> 






CN! 


fi 


co 






O 




CJ 



9 

CD 
CO 
CM 
Oi 

o> 

co 



cd 

CO 



cxd 

CD 

CN 

co" 
CN 



CO 



CO 



ca 



ft o 



a 
o 

CO 



X! 



C8 

o 



■S s a 

eg co H 

cu > eg 
> O a 

^ P. 

eg 



eg +3 
hP 3 
FH O 
CO 



bp eg 

eg eg 
> bo 

<! co 



eg cj3 
.fl P 
H O 
CO 



eg 3 g 



a 

« J3 



o 

o co"g 

"= « 

OS 
CM 

si 



en _g 



■ — | CO 



p 

cu C3 
_ C 

ft, 



CO OS QO CD CO 


CO 












CO cp* tr— CO OS 
O OS co Cr- CO 


CO 


CO 










CD t— i OO CO CO 


CO 












OO QO CO CO OS 

-rf LO LO CO 


tH 
tH 


vH 










O IN l> O 


Tf 


tH 










CO CO CO t— 
^ CO (M ^ H 


CO 

CM 


L - 

CM 










^ (N I> (M 














tJh oo OS CO tJh 
vH CO CO LO -rH 
H rH H vH (M 


LO 

CO 
CO 


CM 
CO 
CO 










o o o o o 

cj co co co 

T — 1 T— 1 t — 1 T — 1 T — 1 


1860 


1850 












CD 












CM CM O LO ^ 
■H ^ IC CO CO 


,374, 


CO 
OS 
CM 


o 

CO 




LO 

CM 


CO id CO 
CM rH vH CO 
LO CO CM 


as co"cm 

CM 












co' CO o 
lo co as 

^ LO CO 


O CI 


LO 


OS 


CO 






LO 


OS OS OO 
CO CO O OO c— 

as as co as 


LO 

CO 


tr- 
ee 


CM 
CO 




CO 
CM 


CM GO CO 
LO vH CO LO 
■H LO CO 


cm" cm" cm" 

CO 












vH CO CM 
CO O LO 

as oo co_ 


CM CO 




CO 


L — 




LO 


tjT cm" cm" 

o 


O O CM CO CO 
CO CO CO LO CM 

•^^co as lo 


OO 
CO 


CO 

o 

vH 


OS 
CO 




CM 
CO 


OS IT- CM ^ 
tr — Co L" lo 
tH CO CO 


os as co 

T — 1 
T — 1 












^ 1 LO Lo" 
CO t— < vH 

o 


O QO 


CO 


CO 


CO 




o 


oo" V 


CM CM OS LO CO 

co co co as c- 

IO lO O ^ M 


c— 

CM 
CM 


LO 

CO 


CM 




CO 
CO 


co tr— as -^f 

lo tr- lo 

as ^ n 


CO co co" 

CM CM CO 

T — 1 












t—"co as 

^ CO o 
tH 




os 


CD 


LO 




CO 


co' co" 

CO 


CO CO LO ^ LO 
1>1>0(M0 


o 

CO 
CO 


CO 
OO 


OO 
CO 




CO 


lo tr- oo ^ 
^ ^ as lo 
oo ^co 


os as co 

CO CO OS 
CO 


all land 


improved 
land 


all land 


improved 
land 


. 28,296 
. 12,929 
. 15,367, 



CO 3 h 
**h ^ eg 

P CO CO 
O «h 
■jh eg • 

Ph H <i 



2 B 

P « 



bo 

eg co 
bo eg 



nH CO CO 

h 72 co eg 
3 co , — +j 



bo 
p co 
bo eg 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



471 



"As a matter of fact ... a large proportion of the tenants 
in the South actually occupied a very different economic 
position from that usually occupied by tenants in other 
parts of the country. The plantation as a unit for general 
purposes of administration has not disappeared, and in 
many cases the tenants on plantations are subjected to 
quite as complete supervision by the owner, general lessee, 
or manager, as that to which the hired labourers are subject- 
ed on large farms in the North and West" (p. 877). 



Chapter XI. Irrigation. 

Arid region: 1,440,822 farms. 1,1 6 1,385,600 acres, 
388.6 million acres of land in farms, 173. 4 million acres 
of improved land. 307. 9 millions of dollars = cost of 
irrigation enterprises ($15. 92 per acre). 

158,713 farms irrigated (13. 7 millions of acres irrigated). 





Average yield per 


acre (1909) 






on irrigated 


on unirrigat- 


± % 




land 


ed land 




corn 








(bushels) 


. . 23. 7 


25. 9 


- 8.5 


oats 


. . 36. 8 


28. 5 


+ 29.! 


wheat . 


. . 25. 6 


15-3 


+ 67. 3 % 


barley . 


. . 29.! 


22.3 


+ 30.5% 


alfalfa . 


. . 2.94 tons 


2 -14 


+ 37.4% 



Taking into account the fact that Mr. Himmer (Zavety, 
1913, No. 6) makes a downright lying assertion about the 1910 
Census, to the effect that in the United States of America 

"there are no areas where colonisation is no longer contin- 
uing, or where large-scale capitalist agriculture is not 
disintegrating and is not being replaced by family-labour 
farms" (p. 60)* — let us dwell on the 
2 divisions: New England 

and Middle Atlantic. Colonisation = 0. (No homesteads). 



See present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 37-38— Ed. 



472 



V. I. LENIN 



The capitalist character of agriculture: 



1909 1899 % 



Expenditure for 
labour (per improved 
acre) 



New England . 
Middle Atlantic 
Pacific .... 
Mountain . . . 

Average for the 
United States 



4.76 
2-66 
3.47 

2-95 



2-55 
1-64 

1- 92 

2- 42 



+ 86% 

+ 62% 
+ 80% 
+ 22% 



1-36 




0-86 


+ 58% 



Thus, the capitalist character is most pronounced and 
is developing most strongly!!! 

Himmer was "confused" over the fact that not only was 
the average farm acreage in these divisions declining in 
general (U.S.A. 146.2—138.!; New England 107.4—104.4; 
Middle Atlantic 92. 4 — 92. 2 ), but that there was also a decrease 
in the quantity of improved land (U.S.A. + 72. 2 + 75. 2 ; 
New England 42. 4 — 38. 4 ; Middle Atlantic 63. 4 — 62. 6 )!!! 

Besides, in terms of improved acreage, New England 
farms are the smallestW 

The silly ass has failed to see the difference between small 
acreages and the capitalist character of agriculture. 

1909 1899 

New England 
Middle Atlantic 
South Atlantic 



Expenditure for ferti- 
lisers (per improved 
acre) 



1-30 
0.62 
1-23 



O.53 +148% 
O.37 + 78% 

O.49 +151% 



Average for the 
United States 



0, 



24 



0.i« + 58% 



Let us note that most fertiliser is used on land under 
cotton (the South!) (see 1900 Statistics). Cotton: 18. 7 % 
of the farms; 22. 5 % of the expenditure for fertilisers. 

cf. p. 1 of extracts (1910) (p. 560)* 
% of farms hiring labour 
\y "q II New England. . . 66. 0 % II M tj 



New England. . . 


66 


0% 


Middle Atlantic . . 


65 


8% 


East North Central 


52 


7 


West _ " 


51 


0 


Mountain .... 


46 


8% 




58 


0% 



*See p. 444.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



473 



Increase (or decrease) 1900-10 

Percentage 
of in- 
crease 
(1899-1909) 
in the 



New 
England 


Number 
of 
farms 


% 


All land 
in farms 
(acres) 

Amount 


% 


Improved land in 
farms (acres) 

Amount % 


value of 

all imple- 
farm ments 
prop- and 
erty machin 
ery 


Total 


—3,086 


— 1 R 

b 


—834,068 


—4 1 
^ • 1 


—879,499 


-10-8 


35. 6 


39.0 


< 20 


6,286 


22. 4 


41,273 


14. 9 


30,984 


15.5 


60. 9 


48. 9 


20-49 


17 


O-i 


— 33,243 


-2.9 


—28,500 


-4-7 


31.4 


30.3 


50-99 


—3,457 


-7. 0 


—250,313 


~7. 2 


—142,270 


-9.1 


27. 5 


31-2 


100-174 


—4,020 


-8.4 


—466,663 


-7.7 


—309,499 


-12.3 


30.3 


38. 5 


175-499 


—1,999 


-6. 7 


—459,948 


-6.1 


—421,081 


-15.3 


33.Q 


44. 6 


500-999 


6 


0-3 


36,311 


2-8 


—46,002 


-12-8 


53.7 


53.7 


1,000 and > 81 


16. 3 


298,515 


36. 2 


36,889 


36. 8 


IO2.7 


60. 5 


Middle 
Atlantic: 


















Total 


—17,239 


Q _ 

— 0.5 






—1,465,317 


-4-8 


28.i 


44.! 


<20 


5,754 


7.7 


29,704 


4-1 


15,550 


2.5 


45. 8 


42. 9 


20-49 


—5,955 


-7.1 


—225,471 


-8.0 


—210,859 


-9.5 


28. 3 


37.0 


50-99 


—11,639 


-8. 2 


—772,300 


-7. 6 


—623,012 


-8.1 


23. 8 


39.9 


100-174 


—5,745 


-4.4 


—746,852 


-4-5 


—605,047 


-5-1 


24.9 


43. 8 


175-499 


495 


1-0 


169,095 


1.4 


—59,57 


-0.8 


29.4 


54.7 


500-999 


—59 


-3-1 


—27,161 


-2-3 


17,990 


3-8 


31-5 


50.8 


1,000 and > 


—90 


—16.! 


—96,049 


-8.0 


—372 


-0.2 


74.4 


65. 2 



These figures are a clear indication that the small farms 
are being displaced by the large. 

In both divisions, a I I the medium groups (20-499) 
have been losing (%). 

The gains were registered by (1) the smallest (< 20) 

(2) the large (500-999 and 
1,000 and >). 



474 



V. I. LENIN 



In percentage and absolute terms (quantity of improved 
land), the large farms gained more than the small!! 

[The small farms (under 20 acres) here are very frequently 
out-and-out capitalist farms] because they have the maxi- 
mum % of land under vegetables and a minimum under 
cereals. 

The % increase in agricultural implements and machin- 
ery (= constant capital in its most important form, which 
is directly indicative of technical progress) is at a raaxi- 
m u m in the large farms, at a minimum in the medi- 
um farms, with the large ones doing better than the 
smallest!!! 

(p. 266, t. 9) 

Percentage distribution of total value 
United States All farm property Implements and machinery 



1910 1900 1910 1900 

Total lOO.o 100.Q 100. 0 100. 0 

(a) < 20 3. 7 — 3. 8 3. 7 — 3. 8 

(P) 20- 49 7. 3 - 7. 9 8. 5 - 9.! 

(Y) 50- 99 14. 6 — 16. 7 17-7— 19-3 

(8) 100-174 27.!— 28. 0 28. 9 — 29. 3 

(s) 175-499 33. 3 + 30. 5 30. 2 + 27.! 

(5) 500-999 7.i+ 5. 9 6. 3 + 15. i 

(r\) 1,000 and > 6. 9 — 7. 3 4. 7 — 6. 2 



New England: 



lOO.o 


lOO.o 


lOO.o 


lOO.o 


12.o + 


lO.i 


7-8 + 


7-3 


13-3- 


13.7 


11.5- 


12. 2 


20. 0 - 


21. 2 


20.8- 


22.Q 


24. 2 - 


25.1 


27. 9 — 


28.Q 


24. 4 — 


24. 8 


27. 3 + 


26. 2 


3-9 + 


3. 4 


3-3 + 


2-9 


2. 4 + 


1-6 


1-5 + 


1-3 



Middle 
Atlantic: 



Total lOO.o 


lOO.o 


lOO.o 


lOO.o 


8.9 + 


7-8 


6.5 = 


6-5 


11.3 = 


U-3 


lO.e- 


11.1 


24. 6 - 


25. 5 


27. 2 - 


28.o 


31.9— 


32. 7 


34. 5 = 


34. 5 


20.3 + 


20.i 


19.4 + 


18.i 


1.8 = 


1-8 


1.8- 


1-3 


1-2 + 


0-8 


0-6 + 


0-5 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



475 



/ ! net i ~t 0 si . V / /i / t> v 


All f n 7*TY1 
rill 1 ai 111 


JJI U JJc I by 


Implements 


and 








machinery 




1 0 1 V 


i q n n 
1 v u u 


1 0 1 V 


1 J V V 


The North: Total 


lOO.o 


100.0 


1f)f) n 


1f)f) r, 




2. 9 - 


3.3 


3.1- 


3.5 


small 


5 i — 

° "1 


6 n 
u.7 


6.6- 


8. 2 




14. 7 - 


I8.0 


I8.2- 


21-3 


medium 


30.1— 


31.2 


31.7— 


32. 7 




38.o + 


33.4 


32.9+ 


29.Q 


large 


6.4 + 


4-8 


5.5+ 


3-8 




2-8 + 


2.5 


2.1 + 


1-6 


The South: Total 


lOO.o 


lOO.o 


100 n 


100 n 




4-7 + 


4-4 


4-6 + 


4-2 


small 


13 n + 


12 n 


13.7+ 


12.3 




17.3 + 


16. 0 


19.2 + 


16. 7 


medium 


23.1 + 


22.1 


2.4+ 


22.4 




24. 2 - 


24. 3 


24.1 + 


22.3 


large 


6. 6 - 


6-8 


6.4- 


6.7 




11.4- 


14.4 


7.6- 


15.5 


The West: Total 


lOO.o 


lOO.o 


lOO.o 


lOO.o 




6. 9 + 


6.5 


5.9 + 


5-6 


small 


9.3 + 


7-1 


10.0 + 


7-9 




9.1 + 


7-2 


10.0 + 


8.7 


medium 


I6.3 + 


15.2 


19.6- 


20.0 




22. 6 + 


21.i 


25.0- 


25.i 


large 


12.1— 


12. 5 


12.3- 


12.7 




23. 7 — 


30.4 


17.3- 


20.0 



Conclusions: 

(1) Two old divisions (New England + Middle Atlantic). 
Maximum growth of the big farms. Erosion of the medi- 
um. Lesser growth of the smallest. 

(2) The North (capitalism). Growth of large farms at the 
expense of the small. 

(3) The South (transition from slavery to capitalism). 
Growth of small farms at the expense of the large. 
(N.B.: The role of the largest is above average.) 

(4) The West (new lands. Maximum of homesteads). Growth 
of small at the expense of the large. (N.B.: The role 
of the largest and the large is above average.) 

(5) Summary. 22: (The United States): Displacement of all 
the small and all the medium ones. Displacement of the 
latifundia (1,000 and >). Growth of big capitalist 
farms (1 75-500; 500-1,000). 



476 



V. I. LENIN 



The U nit ed- 
it is interesting to compare the data on the %% 



Number of 
farms 



A) Quantity of improved 
land 

%% of 
acreage 



1910 

+ 13. 2 
+ 22. 2 
-22. 6 
-23. 8 
+ 15.4 
+ 2. 0 
= 0. 8 



1900 

11. 7 
21. 9 
23.8 
24. 8 
15.i 

1-8 
0-8 



+ smallest (< 20) 

— small and 

— medium 

+ large and 
+ latifundia 
+ (latifundia) 



1910 

1-7 
7-6 
14. 9 
26. 9 
33. 8 
8.5 
6. 5 



1900 

1-6 
8. 0 
16. 2 
28. 6 
32. 7 
7.1 
5. 9 



B)) (Value) 
all farm 
property 



1910 

- 3. 7 

- 7. 3 
-14.6 

- 27.! 
+ 33. 3 
+ 7.! 

- 6. 9 



remarkable! 



(- 3. 7 

(-49.0 
(+40.4 
- 6.9 



1900 

3-8 

7.9 
16. 7 

28. 0 
30.5 

5. 9 
7-3 

3. 8 
52.6 
36. 4 

7.3 



C)) 
(Value) 
land 



1910 

- 2. 8 

- 6.4 

— 13.4 

— 26. 7 
+ 35. 4 
+ 7-8 
+ 7. 6 



1900 
2. 9 

7-2 
16.! 
28. 2 
32. 2 

6- 2 

7- 1 



decline of the lati- 



This is 

There is an increase in the value of land!! (both in the 
large farms and the latifundia). 

Only in two divisions is there no 
fundi a (1,000 and >), namely, the oldest and capitalist 
divisions, New England and Middle Atlantic!! In these two 
divisions, the role of the latifundia has increased in 
all respects (including even livestock!!) (Middle Atlan- 
tic = 0. 6 — 0.6 livestock, New England, 1. 5 — 1. 4 livestock). 

The exception (N.B.) is the maximum destruction of lati- 
fundia in We s t South Central = 21. 3 — 41. 9 , and in 
the West = 33. 6 — 38. 5 , i.e., just where the latifundia are 
out size d\\ 

Added 



All the 

million. 



added value to all farm property= +$20,551 



Of this smallest 
small and 
medium 



large and 
latifundia 



{ 
{ 



$ mill. 

+ 753 
+ 1,365 
+ 2,590 
+ 5,368 
+ 7,422 
+ 1,707 
+ 1,346 



} 
} 



4,708 
5,368 
10,475 



In these 10 years, the industrial 
4. 7 million, 1910— 6. 6 million) ( + 40. 4 %) 
wages by 1,419 million ( + 70. 6 %). 



2 = 20,551 

workers (1900: 
increased their 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



477 



States: 



distribution of various elements in the farms 







(Value) 








(Value) 




(Value) 


implements 


(Value) 




all farm 


All 


buildings 


and 




livestock 




property 


land 






machinery 














1910 


1900 


1910 1900 


1910 


1900 




1910 


1900 


1910 1900 


+ 8. 0 


7-1 


- 3. 7 


3-8 


- 3. 3 


3. 5 




- 3. 7 


3-8 


+ 1-0 0-9 


-10. 6 


IO.7 


- 8. 5 


9-1 


+ 7. 8 


7-0 




- 7. 3 


7-9 


+ 5. 2 5. 0 


-19. 3 


20. 4 


-17.7 


19.3 


+ 15.2 


14.5 




-14. 6 


I6.7 


-11.7 11-8 


-28. 3 


29. 0 


-28. 9 


29. 3 


+ 26. 8 


25. 6 




— 27.! 


28. 0 


+ 23. 4 23. o 


+ 26. 8 


25. 9 


+ 30.2 


27.! 


+ 30.6 


28. 5 




+ 33.3 


30.5 


+ 30.2 27. 8 


+ 4. 3 


4-0 


+ 6. 3 


5-1 


= 7. 0 


7.0 




+ 7.i 


5. 9 


+ 9. 5 8.i 


- 2. 6 


2. 9 


- 4. 7 


6-2 


- 9. 3 


13. 9 




- 6.9 


7-3 


-19.Q 23. 6 



livestock 


livestock 


26.3—25 


+ % 




+ 1-3 




-0-2 


26.8-25. 6 


+ 0-8 




+ 1.2 




+ 1-2* 


46. 9 —49. 4 






-2-5 




-4-6 



value: 

% of farms mill, farms idem (1900) 
58. 0 3. 7 (3. 3 ) 
23. 8 1-5 (1-4) 
I8.2 1-1 (l-o) 
lOO.o 6.3 (5. 7 ) 



* Lenin left out the next group of 175 to 499: +2.i.— Ed. 



478 



V. I. LENIN 



Some economic elements (resp. classes) in the U.S.A., 

1900 191 0+ +% 
Capitalists in in- Number of enterprises 207.5 268.5+ 61 + 29-4% 

dustry: ('000) 



Urban population 
+ 34. 8 % 



Number of wage workers 4,713 6,615 +1,902 +40. 4% 
('000) 



Agriculture: 



Rural population 
+ 11.2% 



Number of farms ('000) 



Number of hired labourers 
(cf. p. 1 and over)* 



5,731 6,361+ 624 + 10. c 



82. 3 % : 70. 6 % = X : 40. 4% 
X=47.±% 



Production of all 


4,439 4,513+ 74 + 1.7% 


cereals (mill. 


bushels) 





Industry: 



Should be 1904 
instead of 1900 



Value of products 

(number of enterprises ('000) and % of total) 



produ ction: 
(< $20,000) small 

($20,000-$100,000) 

medium 
($100,000 and >) large 

Total 



1900 1910 


+ 


+ % 


144 180 


+ 36 


+ 25% 


66. 6 % + 67. 2 % 






48 57 


+ 9 


+ 18. 7 % 


22.2%— 21.3% 




24 31 


+ 7 


+ 29.i% 


11. 2 % +11.5% 






216 268 


+ 52 


+ 24. 2 % 



100% 100% 



Agriculture: 



Number of farms ('000) and % of total 
(under 99 acres) small 
(100-174) medium 
(175 and >) large 



3,297 3,691 +394 + 11. 5% 

57. 4 % + 58. 0 % 
1,422 1,516 +94 + 6. 6 % 

24. 8 %— 23. 8 % 
1,018 1,154 +136 +13.3% 
17.7% +18. 2 % 



Total 



5,737 6,361 
100% 100% 



+ 624 +10.9% 



See pp. 482-83.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



479 



according to the 12th (1900) and 13th (1910) censuses 





1900 1910+ + % 
Their capi- 8,975 18,428+ 9,453+ 105. 3 % 
tal ($ mill.) 


1900 1910 + % 
Value 11,406 20,672 + 9,266 + 81%* 
of prod- 
ucts 
($ mill.) 




Their wages 2,008 3,427+ 1,419+ 70. 6 % 
($ mill.) 






Value of 20,440 40,991+20,551+ 100. 5 % 
their prop- 
erty 
($ mill.) 

Their 357 652+ 295+ 82. 3% 
wages 
($ mill.) 




Their 1,483 2,665+ 1,182+ 79. 8 % 
value 
($ mill.) 




1900 1910 + + % 

Value of 
products 
($ mill.) 

yz / i,iz/-|- zuu-(- zi.5/0 

6.3% 5.5% 

2,129 2,544 415+ 19. 5% 

14. 4 %- 12.3% 
11,737 17,000+ 5,263+ 44. 8 % 
79. 3% + 82. 2 % 

14,793 20,671+ 5,878+ 39. 7% 
100% 100% 






Value of 
their prop- 
erty 
($ mill.) 

5,790 10,499+ 4,709+ 81.3% 

28. 4 %— 25-6% 
5,721 11,089+ 5,368+ 93. 8 % 

28. 0 % -27.!% 
8,929 19,403+10,474+ 117.3 

43. 7%** +47. 3% 




20,440 40,991+20,551+100.5% 
100% 100% 



* In the Fourth Russian edition of Lenin's Collected Works this figure has 
been corrected to 81.2% (see present edition, Vol. 22, p. 94). — Ed. 

** In the Fourth Russian edition of Lenin's Collected Works this figure 
has been corrected to 43. 6 % (Ibid., Vol. 22, p. 98).— Ed. 



480 



V. I. LENIN 



Three types: 

1) The North 

2) The South 

3) The West 



For a characteristic of the population 



(Abstract of the 
Census, p. 92) 



Per cent distribution by class of 



3 
o 

13 



.1 

=2 

CD 

•3 P 
> o 



O 



United States 


rural 


53. 7 


55. 8 


27. 8 


72. 6 




urban 


46. 3 


44. 2 


72. 2 


27. 4 


New England 


rural 


16. 7 


20. 4 


7-6 


8-2 




urban 


83. 3 


79. 6 


92. 4 


91-8 




Middle Atlantic 


rural 


29.o 


33.7 


16.i 


18.8 




urban 


71.o 


66.3 


83. 9 


81.2 




East North Central 


rural 


47.3 


51.6 


28. 6 


23. 4 




urban 


52. 7 


48. 4 


71.4 


76. 6 





West North Central 



rural 
urban 



DO. 7 

33. 3 



Do. 4 
31. 6 



60. 8 
39. 2 



32. 



67.7 



South Atlantic 


rural 
urban 


74. 6 
25. 4 


74.4 
25. 6 


34.Q 
66.Q 


77. 9 
22.! 


East South Cen- 
tral 


rural 
urban 


81.3 
18. 7 


82. 2 
17. 8 


33. 3 
66. 7 


80.8 
19. 2 


West South Cen- 
tral 


rural 
urban 


77. 7 
22. 3 


78.4 
21-6 


60.8 
39. 2 


78.o 
22.o 



Mountain 



rural 
urban 



64.o 
36.Q 



64. 0 
36.Q 



6O.3 
39. 7 



28. 



72. 



Pacific 



rural 
urban 



43. 2 
56. 8 



44. 2 
55.8 



38. 7 

61-3 



16. ( 



83., 



) Total of two vertical figures = 100. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



481 



within the U.S.A. 
(1910) 



N.B. N.B. 
The Negroes are in flight from 
the S o u t h (m o s 1 1 y to the 
cities). The North is giving up 
its population to the West. The 
foreign-born avoid the South. 



community:*) 
% of all population 

pi 

.Bf ° 

™ S w> 

o o « 


[ibidem p. 175] 
% of population (1910) 

«H ' 5 
0 CP > O 

•5 g a .S^ 3 a 

PQ T3 sh O B eS 


Gain or loss 
interstate 

m 

a a 

0 

• r-t m 
> 


(1910) from 
migration 

L 
<v 

0 

S>a 


14. 5 10-7 


72. 6 12-3 14-7 






27. 7 l-o 


66. 2 5.5 27.9 


— 226,219 
— 1,120,678 

— 1,496,074 
+ 472,566 


+ 20,310 
+ 186,384 
+ 119,649 
+ 40,497 


25. 0 2. 2 


69. 7 4.9 25.! 


16.8 1-6 


73.4 9.3 16.8 


13.g 2-i 


65. 4 20. 2 13-9 




2.4 




33.7 




92. 6 


4.7 




2.5 




— 507,454 

— 974,165 
+ 1,434,780 


—392,827 
— 200,876 
+ 194,658 




l-o 




31-5 




91.5 


7-3 




l-o 






4-0 




22. 6 




72. 3 


23.3 




4-0 




16.6 0. 8 


41.8 40.2 17.2 


+ 856,683 
+ 1,560,561 


+ 13,229 
+ 18,976 


20.5 0.7 


35. 8 40.3 22. 8 



482 



V. I. LENIN 



3~ 
a g 

£ 0 
a o 



LO 

CN 

CD 
LO 



+ 



-a 

a 



CO 

o 



03 
CO 
Pi 

o 



03 
ft 

o 
O 



be 



LO 



03 



B 

25 



o 

CO 

CO 



OS 

CO 



O 
> 



o 
pq 



00 



00 

oo" 



«5 
CO 



00 

co 



CN] 
OS 

CO 



3 
ft 



3 

o 

be 



CD 
t> 

0t3 
co" 

CN 

co 



oo" 
oo 
o 



o 



ojd 



GO 
C5 



cq 

lO* 
CO 



n 

CD 

a 

o 

ss 

>> 
'3 

cS 
CD 



cS 

Q 



LO 

o 

CTs" 
CM 
CN 



CO 


LO 


c— 


00 


CTS 


LO 


LO 


oo 


LO 


cd" 


t-" 


tH 


00 




oo 


LO 




CN 


co" 




Lo" 


c~ 


LO 


LO 


c~ 


c- 


c~ 


00 


00 


co 


s 


©" 








[— 


-* 




CC 






LO' 



CN 
CM 
LO 
^-T 

GO 
° 3 „ 
LO" 



> 

o 

PS 
cS 



CD 

a 

cS 



CN 
CO 

q 
cd" 

LO 



00 
00 



o 



cS 

o 



LO 

CD 

o" 

CO 



o 

CN 

q 

ON 



cS 



3 



LO 



GO 
GO 
CT> 

GO 



CN 




CTS 


CD 


LO 


GO 




tH 




co" 


L— " 


cn" 




CN 


CN 




tH 





CD 
> 
O 



n 

cS 



o 
+-» 
00 



LO 

o 

cd" 

CO 



CD 

LO 



CD 
ft 
ft 
O 

O 

o 



o 

LO 



CD 

o 



o 





CD 


CTS 


c— 


o 


o 


CD 


CN 


CTS 


CN 


CD 


co 




CD 


<o 


cn" 


LO" 


o" 


co" 


CTs" 




CO 


c— 


CO 





LO 

CO 

c- 

M<" 

CN 



CD 
CJ 

oo" 
CN 



3 

o 

js 
pa 

cS 



CD 



CD 
PS 



=1 

EH 



CN 
CO 
LO 
LO" 



CD 
CO 
CD 



CTS 
CO 
CO 



LO 



3 
ft 



3 

o 



be 
cS 



ft 

< 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



483 



00 
CD 
CO 



CD 
• >— ( 

o 

C7> 



-X- 
* 

h 

> 
o 



CD 
CD 



O 

•I- 

oo 

00 

o 



CO 

•I- 

CO 
CN 
CD 
CD 
LO 



CM 
I 

o 
o 



O 
h 



oo 
o" 

"*„ 
GO- 
GO 

o 



Ph 

CD 

O 
03 



03 

i — I 
O 

*Ph 
he 



oo 

CD 
CO 

co" 



CO 
CN 
cd" 

CD 



02 
O 
CN 
co" 

CD 
CD 



CO 
CO 
tH 

CN 
CN 

io 



B 

CD 



CO 

CN 

CD 

9 
a. 



CO 
CN 

+ 

o 

oo 



o 
o 

02 



03 
CN 



o 
o 

CT3 
I 

O 



CN 



o 



LO " 

00 s« 

LO CO 

cd"cd 

C- CD 



0> -U CD 

i— j I i 1 



00 

© 

o" 

CN 
CN 



CN c>- 
LO -f 
L~-"cO 
CO >o 
co + 



he • 


be 




g 


g 










pH 






o • 


o 




£ . 


& 




CO 


CO 




P-H * 


5h 




CD 


CD 




pH . 


Ph 












O 




.a a 






03 Sh 






i — i o3 














a 






•S 












CD 




1— 1 

cd CD 


i — I 

03 




CD 


em 


+^ 






a 


^ o 




0 


^8 


S. 





C72 -<t 
C75 

Co"c75 
CO <N 
H N 

CN <N 

I 



Ph 

,2 be 

£3 

o g 



b CQ- 



CD . 
ft 



CO 

co 
co" 

CO 



00 
^ CN 



be 
CS 



3 

o 

rQ 

ca 



Ph 

CD 



o 



3 

o 

be 
fi 

Ph 

o 



CD 



LO 
CD 

go" 













CN 


■>* 


CD 


o 


CN 




CD 




US 




°V 




t-" 


of 


cd" 




CO 




CD 




CO 


CN 


lO 






cn" 


CN 








II 



CO 
CN 
go" 

q 

CN 



^3 
I 

LO 
GO 



g 
'3 

CD 



■rH LO 

03 

5 ft 

CD CD 

cd 

* * 
* 



484 



V. I. LENIN 



Industrial statistics show 



wage wages 
workers 



1899 .... 4. 7 mill. $2,008 mill. 
1909 .... 6. 6 " $3,427 " 
+ 40. 6 % +70. 6 % 



Consequently, the increase in the number of hired labour- 
ers in agriculture could be estimated: 



Increase in Increase in 

number of farms rural population 

The North 40% + 0. 6 % + 3. 9 % 

The South 50% + 18. 2 % — 14. 8 % 

The West 66% + 5 3. 7% + 4 9. 7% 

48% + 10.9% + 11.2% 



(X) Concerning the number of women gainfully employed* 
in agriculture (1910), the author (p. 27) believes their 
number to be overstated and estimates these figures 
as the more probable: (p. 28) 

total number of women engaged in agriculture: 1,338,950 
instead of 1,807,050 (i.e.— 468,100), 

and total number of women engaged in a I I branches of 
the economy, 7,607,672, instead of 8,075,772 
(—468,100). 



My addition: referring this entire overstatement 
only to those working on the home farms, we have: 
1,176,585—468,100 = 708,485^-441,055 = 166% + 66% 



See p. 483.— Ed. 



MATERIAL ON THE CAPITALIST ECONOMY 



485 



Thus, according to the Occupation Statistics (see 
p. 1 over)* 



1910 



1900 + 



Total persons 
occupied in 
agriculture . . 

Farmers . . . 
Hired labourers 
(see p. 1 over) 



12,099,825 10,381,765 +16% 
**see No. 1 (below) 
5,981,522 5,674,875 + 5% 



2,566,966 2,018,213 +27% 



*see No. 2 (below) 



5,981,522 | 5,674,875 
105.4 

2,566,966 | 2,018,213 
127 



I must say, on the whole, that American Occupation 
Statistics are not worth a damn, for they say absolutely 
nothing about the "status of person in industry" (and make 
no distinction between the owner, the home-farm worker 
and the hired labourer). 

That is why their scientific value is almost nil. Ill N.B. II 

N.B. 



Then they say nothing at all about collateral employ- 
ment. 



My totals are from p. 235 of the Statistical Abstract. 



No. 1: +16%, whereas the rural population = 

+ 11%. Why? Clearly, because of the increased 

number of women employed. 
No. 2: 2 expenditure for labour + 48%. Why? 

Clearly, because poor farmers are also hired 

(collateral employment). 



*See pp. 482-83.— Ed. 
* See p. 482.— Ed. 



486 



V. I. LENIN 



Occupation Statistics 

Per cent distribution: 
Total persons employed (10 years of age and > ) 

° S B a a; a co 

£ 3 el o -got, Soogo 

cu S co -j3 co'3 ° M '3 'J3 01 H 

3° *2 || 2 2 ■§ 2 lg jj 

United States . . 38,167,336 33. 2 2. 5 27. 9 6.9 9. 5 1. 2 4. 4 9. 9 4. 6 

New England . . 2,914,680 10. 4 0.3 49. 1 6.5 10. 6 1. 7 4. 8 10. 7 5. 9 

Middle Atlantic 8,208,885 10. 0 4. 2 40. 6 8. 0 12. 0 1.4 4. 9 11. 8 7.! 

East North Cen- 
tral 7,257,953 25. 6 2. 6 33. 2 7. 6 10. 6 l.i 4. 8 9. 2 5. 3 

West North Cen- 
tral 4,449,043 41. 2 l.g 20. 0 7. 8 10. 4 l. t 5. 2 8.5 3. 9 

South Atlantic . 5,187,729 51. 4 l.g 18.6 5. 0 5.i 1. 0 3. 0 10. 5 2. 6 

East South Cen- 
tral 3,599,695 63. 2 1. 9 12. 4 4. 0 5. 3 0. 6 2. 6 8.4 1.7 

West South Cen- 
tral 3,507,081 60.! 0.7 12. 6 5. 2 7. 0 O.g 3. 3 8.1 2.4 

Mountain. . . . 1,107,937 32. 4 9. 4 19. 5 10. 3 8.7 1.7 5. 2 9.i 3. 6 

Pacific 1,934,333 22. 6 2. 4 27. 2 10. 3 12. 6 2. 0 6. 0 11. 3 5. 5 

Written between 
May 5 (18), 1914 and 
December 29, 1915 
(January 11, 1916) 

First published in 1932 Printed from the original 
in Lenin Miscellany XIX 



NOTES 
AND 
INDEXES 



489 



NOTES 

This work was written in parts: the first nine chapters, from June 
to September 1901 and the last three, in the autumn of 1907. 
In the Fourth Russian edition of Lenin's Collected Works, it appear- 
ed in Vol. 5 (chapters I-IX) and in Vol. 13 (chapters X-XII); 
in the Fifth edition of the Collected Works, the whole of it is in 
Vol. 5. The present volume contains the preparatory material: 
plans for and the contents of the work, critical remarks on the 
writings of bourgeois economists and revisionists, and elaboration 
and analysis of agricultural statistics. 

The four variants of the plan in this volume reflect Lenin. 's elabo- 
ration of the structure and content of "The Agrarian Question and 
the 'Critics of Marx'". Lenin's primary aim is to expose the general 
theoretical views of the "critics", the "law of diminishing returns" 
as scientifically unsound and the theory of rent connected with 
it, together with the Malthusian conclusions from both. He then 
outlines a detailed critical analysis of bourgeois and revisionist writ- 
ings on the key problems of agrarian theory and agrarian relations 
(concentration of production in agriculture, machinery in agricul- 
ture, etc.), and exposure of the "critics'" tenuous and scientifical- 
ly dishonest methods of inquiry and use of factual material. Lenin 
makes a special analysis of the statistical data and results of 
monographic descriptions of agrarian relations in France, Germa- 
ny and other countries for an examination of the actual processes 
in agriculture, the capitalist system in contemporary agriculture 
and a critique of bourgeois and revisionist writings. 

The variants of the plan show the successive extension of the 
range of questions and their content, and Lenin's changes in the 
order of the various points. Lenin repeatedly returned to the 
fourth variant, the most elaborate and complete. There, the Roman 
numerals of the eleven sections of the plan are in pencil, as are 
also the additional notes to point 12: "the journal Nachalo {The 
Beginning) I, pp. 7 and 13" and to point 21: "Latifundia. (Cf. 
Hertz 15; Bulgakov II, 126, 190, 363)". In point 12, beginning 
with "No. 4, 141" and to the end of the paragraph and in the note 
to this point (12) on the right, "Engels on Belgium, No. 10, 234", 
and also in the note to point 18, beginning with the words: "Bul- 
gakov II, 289" and to the end of the paragraph, the words are 
lightly crossed in pencil. p. 29 

For extracts and critical remarks on the books Bauerliche Zustande 
in Deutschland. Berichte, veroffentlicht vom Verein fur Sozialpo- 
litik. Bd. 1-3. Leipzig, 1883 {The Condition of the Peasants in 



490 



NOTES 



3 



4 



Germany. Published by the Social Policy Association. Vols. 1, 
2, 3) see Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 166-80. Lenin used this mate- 
rial in his work, "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'" 
(see present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 180-81, and Vol. 13, pp. 182-94). 

p. 29 

Lenin's remarks on Baudrillart's book, Les populations agricoles 
de la France. La Normandie (passe et present) (The Agricultural 
Population of France. Normandy (Past and Present), Paris, 1880. 
See Lenin Miscellany XXXII, pp. 82-105. For Lenin's remarks on 
Baudrillart's book, Les populations agricoles de la France. 3'e 
serie. Les populations du Midi, Paris, 1893 (The Agricultural 
Population of France, Part III. The Population of the South) see 
this volume pp. 258-59. p. 29 

A reference to the distorted translation and wrong interpretation 
of quotations from Frederick Engels's The Peasant Question in 
France and Germany in the Socialist-Revolutionary newspaper 
Revolutsionnaya Rossiya (Revolutionary Russia). See Lenin Miscel- 
lany XIX, pp. 287-93. p. 29 

Lenin's remarks on the book by Hugo Bottger, Die Sozialdemokratie 
auf dem Lande, Leipzig, 1900 (Social-Democrats in the Countryside). 
See Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 304-06. p. 29 

6 Iskra No. 3, April 1901, carried Lenin's article "The Workers' 
Party and the Peasantry", which was an outline of the agrarian 
programme of the R.S.D.L.P. (see present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 420- 
28). p. 29 

7 For Lenin's critique of P. Maslov's anti-Marxist view of the 
theory of rent, see present edition, Vol. 5, footnote on page 27. p. 30 

8 A reference to the book by P. Mack, Der Aufschwung unseres Land- 
wirtschaftsbetriebes durch Verbilligung der Produktionskosten. Fine 
Untersuchung iiber den Dienst, den Maschinentechnik und Elektri- 
zitat der Landwirtschaft bieten, Konigsberg, 1900 (Boosting Our 
Agricultural Production by Reducing the Costs of Production. An 
Inquiry into the Services Rendered to Agriculture by Machinery 
and Electricity). p. 30 



5 



9 



10 



A reference to Kautsky's article, "Die Elektrizitat in der Land- 
wirtschaft". Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart, 1900-1901, XIX. Jahrgang. 
Band I, No. 18, S. 565-72 ("Electricity in Agriculture", New Times, 
Stuttgart, 1900-1901, XlXth year of publication, Vol. 1, No. 18, 
pp. 565-72). p. 30 

In 1900, Russkoye Bogatstvo (Russian Wealth), a journal of the 
liberal Narodniks, carried a series of articles by V. Chernov under 
the general title "Types of Capitalist and Agrarian Evolution". 
Lenin gave a critique of Chernov's views in "The Agrarian Ques- 



NOTES 



491 



tion and the 'Critics of Marx'". Here and below Lenin notes the 
issues and pages of the journal with Chernov's statements, p. 30 

11 Ireland was regarded as the example of a country of large landed 
estates and small ("starvation") leaseholdings, where tremendous 
wealth existed side by side with dire poverty and recurring famines 
a land from which masses of ruined farmers were in night. Bul- 
gakov tried to cover up the poverty and the dying-out of the Irish 
farmers with Malthusian arguments about a "surplus" population 
and "shortage" of land, whereas the real reason lay in the monopoly 
of the landed estates and the fierce exploitation of the small farm- 
ers, p. 30 

12 In their preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Manifesto of 
the Communist Party, Marx and Engels say this about landed 
property in the United States: "Step by step the small and middle 
landownership of the farmers, the basis of the whole political 
constitution, is succumbing to the competition of giant farms" 
(Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1962, p. 23). p. 31 

13 See Lenin Miscellany XIX, p. 159. p. 31 

14 Lenin's remarks on Georges Blondel's book, Etudes sur les 
populations rurales de VAllemagne et la crise agraire (Studies of the 
Rural Population in Germany and the Agrarian Crisis), Paris, 1897. 
See Lenin Miscellany XXXI, pp. 84-86. p. 31 



See Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 166-80. p. 31 

2a3b—a pseudonym of P. N. Lepeshinsky. p. 32 



17 Lenin gave a critique of Bulgakov's, "A Contribution to the Question 
of the Capitalist Evolution of Agriculture" which appeared in the 
journal of the Legal Marxists, Nachalo, Nos. 1-2 for 1899, in his 
works "Capitalism in Agriculture" (present edition, Vol. 4, pp. 105- 
59) and "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'" (ibid., 
Vol. 5, pp. 103-222, and Vol. 13, pp. 169-216). p. 33 



is 



Rentengiiter — estates set up in Prussia and Poznan under laws 
passed by the Prussian Landtag on April 26, 1886, June 27, 1890 
and July 7, 1891, for the purpose of settling German peasants 
in the eastern provinces of Germany. The establishment of these 
estates was designed to strengthen German and weaken Polish 
influence in these provinces and to assure the big landowners of 
cheap labour. This involved the break-up of large landed estates 
(sometimes bought from Polish landowners) into small and medium 
tracts title to which was transferred to German peasants upon the 
payment of the capital amount or the annual rent. When a settler 
bought the land by paying the annual rent, he was restricted in 
his disposal of it: he was not free, without government permission, 
to divide the estate, sell it in parcels, etc. p. 35 



492 



NOTES 



19 This is an outline of the contents of the second part of Lenin's 
"The Agrarian Question and the "Critics of Marx'" which was 
first published in Obrazovaniye (Education) No. 2 in February 
1906. The pagination of the manuscript by chapters warrants 
the assumption that it dates to the period when Lenin was pre- 
paring the manuscript for publication in the journal. p. 39 

20 The two remarks at the bottom of the manuscript enclosed in 
rectangles are a reckoning of the time it took to read this part 
of the manuscript. The first remark relates to Chapter V and the 
first part of Chapter VI, and is the result of Lenin's trial in rapid 
silent reading on the basis of which he drew the conclusion (in 
the second remark) that it would take "about 2 hours" to read 
the whole manuscript. p. 39 

21 This material is preparatory for Lenin's lectures on "Marxist 
Views of the Agrarian Question in Europe and Russia" which he 
gave at the Higher Russian School of Social Sciences in Paris on 
February 10-13 (23-26), 1903. The school was founded in 1901 
by a group of liberal professors who had been expelled by the 
tsarist government from higher schools in Russia (M. M. Kova- 
levsky, Y. S. Gambarov and E. V. de Roberti); assistance was 
given to the school by I. I. Mechnikov, Elise Reclus, G. Tard 
and others. It operated legally. The student body consisted mainly 
of young revolutionary Russian emigres in Paris and Russian 
students. Lenin was invited to lecture on the agrarian question 
at the insistence of Iskra's Paris group with the support of the 
Social-Democratic section of the students. Lenin gave four lec- 
tures on February 10, 11, 12 and 13 (23, 24, 25 and 26), 1903 and 
these were a great success. 

In preparing for his lectures, Lenin studied many sources on 
the agrarian question and made numerous extracts from the works 
of Marx and Engels, the resolutions of the International, and 
from books and articles by Russian and foreign authors 
(P. P. Maslov, V. P. Vorontsov, David, Nossig, Bottger, Stumpfe, 
etc.); he also compiled tables on the basis of Bavarian, Prussian, 
Wiirttemberg, Dutch and other agricultural inquiries, and made 
a special translation of Engels's article, "The Peasant Question 
in France and Germany" (see Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 295-300). 
Lenin drew up a programme for his lectures and mailed it to the 
school beforehand, and wrote two variants of the plan. p. 40 

22 See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, Moscow, 1966, p. 812, and also 
Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 3, pp. 155-56. p. 40 

23 See Engels, "The Peasant Question in France and Germany" 
(Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow, 1962, pp. 426- 
27). p. 40 

24 The first four chapters of Lenin's "The Agrarian Question and 
the 'Critics of Marx'" were published in Zarya (Dawn), a Marxist 



NOTES 



493 



scientific and political journal (published legally at Stuttgart 
in 1901 and 1902 by the Iskra Editorial Board). They appeared 
in No. 2-3 in December 1901, under the title "The 'Critics' on 
the Agrarian Question. First Essay". p. 40 

25 See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 215-22 and the extract "On the Ques- 
tion of the Co-operatives" from the German agricultural statistics 
in Lenin Miscellany XIX, p. 302. p. 41 

26 For Lenin's remarks with an analysis of the data from the Bava- 
rian and Wiirttemberg inquiries see Lenin Miscellany XXXII, 
pp. 50-80, and 155-60. p. 41 

27 A reference to the following articles by Marx and Engels: "Die 
Gesetzenwurf iiber die Aufhebung der Feudallasten" ("The Bill 
on the Abolition of Feudal Services") and "Die Polendebatte in 
Frankfurt" ("Debates on the Polish Question in Frankfort") (see 
Marx/Engels, Werke, Bd. 5, Berlin, 1959, S. 278-83, 331-35 and 
341-46). For extracts from these articles see Lenin Miscellany 
XIX, p. 303. p. 41 

28 A reference to an article by Marx and Engels entitled "Zirkular 
gegen Kriege" ("Anti-Kriege Circular"), section two "Oekonomie 
des Volks-Tribunen und seine Stellung zum Jungen Amerika" 
("The Political Economy of Volks-Tribun and Its Attitude to 
Young America") (see Marx/Engels, Werke, Band 4, Berlin, 1959, 
S. 8-11). p. 41 

29 For extracts from the resolutions of congresses of the International 
see Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 303-04. p. 41 

30 A reference to the 1874 second section of Engels's Prefatory Note 
to his work "The Peasant War in Germany" (see Marx and Engels, 
Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1962, pp. 648-54. p. 41 

31 A reference to the debates at the German Social-Democratic 
Parteitag in Breslau in October 1895. p. 41 

32 Lenin's remarks on P. Maslov's book, Conditions of Agricultural 
Development in Russia, see Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 307-09; 
see also Lenin's letter to Plekhanov (present edition, Vol. 34, 
pp. 150-51). p. 42 

33 "Essay II" means chapters V to IX of Lenin's "The Agrarian 
Question and the 'Critics of Marx'", published in Obrazovaniye No. 2, 
February 1906 (see present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 159-222). p. 42 

34 Lenin calculated the rent on a page of the manuscript containing 
the entry: "Essay II (agrarian statistics)". p. 43 

35 See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, Moscow, 1966, p. 812. p. 45 



494 



NOTES 



A reference to Karl Kautsky's book Die Agrarfrage (The Agrar- 



ian Question). p. 45 

See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, Moscow, 1966, p. 798. p. 45 

See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, Moscow, 1966, pp. 748-72, 

Chapter XXXXV "Absolute Ground-Rent". p. 46 



See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, Moscow, 1966, pp. 670-71. 

p. 47 

For the extract with Marx's comment on R. Jones (Capital, Vol. Ill, 
Moscow, 1966, pp. 780-81) see Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 309-10, 
and also Lenin's The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy 
in the First Russian Revolution, 1905-1907 (present edition, Vol. 13, 



pp. 305-06). p. 47 

N.— on.— N. F. Danielson. p. 49 

A reference to P. A. Vikhlyaev's "Sketches of Russian Agricul- 
tural Reality", St. Petersburg, 1901. p. 50 



Lenin's lecture on "The Agrarian Programme of the Socialist- 
Revolutionaries and of the Social-Democrats" was read in Paris 
on March 3, 1903, after the lectures on the agrarian question at 
the Higher Russian School of Social Sciences. The rules of the 
school did not allow Lenin to draw any conclusions concerning 
the programme and tactics of the Party in his lectures, and so 
he formulated them in a special lecture given outside the school, 
for members of the Russian colony. His lecture was discussed 
for four days, from March 3 to 6. Among his opponents were Nev- 
zorov (Y. M. Steklov) from the Borba group, B. N. Krichevsky 
from Rabocheye Dyelo, Vladimirov (V. M. Chernov) from the 
Narodniks, N. Chaikovsky and O. Minor from the Socialist-Revo- 
lutionaries, and V. Cherkezov from the anarchists. 

The present volume contains two variants of the outline of 
the lecture, the plans and the outlines of the concluding speech 
and the resume of the lecture. For Lenin's records of the speeches 
of his opponents and extracts from various sources and writings 
see Lenin Miscellany XIX. 

The volume and content of the lecture outlines warrant the 
assumption that he also intended to use them as the plan for a 
pamphlet against the Socialist-Revolutionaries. Of his intention 
to write such a pamphlet, Lenin told Plekhanov in a letter of 
January 28, 1903 (see Lenin Miscellany IV, p. 208). p. 53 

Socialist-Revolutionaries (S.R.s) — a petty-bourgeois party in Rus- 
sia, founded in late 1901-early 1902 as a result of the merger of 
various Narodnik groups and circles (the Union of Socialist- 
Revolutionaries, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, etc.). The 
newspaper Revolutsionnaya Rossiya (Revolutionary Russia) (1900- 



NOTES 



495 



05), and the journal Vestnik Russkoi Revolutsii {Herald of the 
Russian Revolution) (1901-05), and later the newspaper Znamya 
Truda (Banner of Labour) (1907-14) were its official organs. The 
views of the S.R.s. were a mixture of Narodnik and revisionist 
ideas; the S.R.s tried, said Lenin, to "patch up the rents in the 
Narodnik ideas with bits of fashionable opportunist 'criticism' 
of Marxism" (see present edition, Vol. 9, p. 310). The S.R.s failed 
to see the class distinctions between the proletariat and the peas- 
antry, glossed over the class stratification and contradictions 
within the peasantry, and denied the proletariat's leading role 
in the revolution. Their tactics of individual terrorism, which 
they claimed to be the main means of fighting the autocracy, 
did a great deal of harm to the revolutionary movement and made 
it more difficult to organise the masses for the revolutionary 
struggle. 

The agrarian programme of the S.R.s called for abolition of 
private property in land and for egalitarian tenure by communes, 
and also development of all types of co-operatives. This programme, 
which the S.R.s claimed would "socialise" the land, had nothing 
socialist about it, because, as Lenin proved, the elimination of 
private property in land alone would not do away with the domi- 
nation of capital and mass poverty. The real and historically 
progressive content of their programme was the struggle to abolish 
the landed estates, a demand which was an objective reflection 
of the interests and aspirations of the peasants during the bourgeois- 
democratic revolution. 

The Bolshevik Party exposed the S.R.s' attempts to masquerade 
as socialists, waged a persistent struggle against the S.R.s for 
influence among the peasants and showed the harm their tactics 
of individual terrorism were inflicting on the working-class move- 
ment. At the same time, the Bolsheviks were prepared on definite 
terms to enter into temporary agreements with the S.R.s to fight 
against tsarism. 

Because the peasantry consisted of diverse class elements, 
the S.R. Party ultimately failed to achieve ideological and polit- 
ical stability and suffered from organisational confusion, con- 
stantly vacillating between the liberal bourgeoisie and the pro- 
letariat. As early as the years of the first Russian revolution, 
its Right wing split off from the Party to form the legal Trudovik 
Popular Socialist Party (Popular Socialists), which held views 
close to those of the Cadets, while its Left wing took shape as 
a semi-anarchist League of "Maximalists". During the period 
of the Stolypin reaction, the S.R. Party was plunged into total 
ideological and organisational disarray. During the years of the 
First World War, most S.R.s adopted social-chauvinist attitudes. 

After the victory of the February 1917 bourgeois-democratic 
revolution, the S.R.s joined the Mensheviks as the mainstay 
of the counter-revolutionary bourgeois-landowner Provisional 
Government, and their leaders (Kerensky, Avksentyev and Chernov) 
were members of the government. The S.R. Party refused to sup- 
port the peasant demand for eliminating the landed estates and 



496 



NOTES 



came out in favour of preserving them. S.R. Ministers of the 
Provisional Government dispatched punitive expeditions against 
peasants seizing landed estates. 

At the end of November 1917, the Left wing of the S.R.s formed 
an independent Left S.R. Party. In an effort to retain their influence 
among the peasant masses, the Left S.R.s gave nominal recogni- 
tion to the Soviet power and entered into an agreement with 
the Bolsheviks, but soon began to fight against the Soviet Govern- 
ment. 

During the years of the foreign military intervention and the 
Civil War, the S.R.s engaged in counter-revolutionary subversive 
activity and gave active support to the interventionists and white- 
guards, taking part in counter-revolutionary plots, and organising 
terrorist acts against the leaders of the Soviet state and the Com- 
munist Party. After the Civil War, the S.R.s continued their 
hostile activity against the Soviet state at home and among the 
whiteguard emigres abroad. p. 53 

Narodism — a petty-bourgeois trend in the Russian revolutionary 
movement which emerged in the 1860s and 1870s. The Narodniks 
worked to overthrow the autocracy and hand the landed estates 
over to the peasants. 

At the same time, they denied that capitalist relations were 
naturally developing in Russia and so believed the peasantry 
and not the proletariat, to be the chief revolutionary force; they 
regarded the village commune as the embryo of socialism. Their 
tactics — individual acts of terrorism — could not and did not 
bring them success; they failed equally in their efforts to revolu- 
tionise the peasantry by spreading the ideas of Utopian socialism. 

In the 1880s-1890s, the Narodniks were prepared to accept the 
tsarist regime; they expressed the interests of the kulaks and 
fought Marxism tooth and claw. p. 53 

Here and below the references are to A. Rudin's pamphlet, On 
the Peasant Question, 1903. Lenin wrote Plekhanov on January 
28, 1903: "Have you seen the pamphlet by Rudin (a Socialist- 
Revolutionary, On the Peasant Question)? What brazen swindlers! 
I am itching to do something about this Rudin and No. 15 on 
socialisation!... It has occurred to me to write an article against 
Rudin and have a special publication of articles against the Social- 
ist-Revolutionaries together with 'Revolutionary Adventurism'" 
(Lenin Miscellany IV, p. 208). p. 53 

A quotation from the appeal "From the Peasant Union of the 
Socialist-Revolutionary Party to All Workers of Revolutionary 
Socialism in Russia", which was carried by Revolutsionnaya 
Rossiya No. 8, p. 8. 

Revolutsionnaya Rossiya (Revolutionary Russia) — an illegal 
paper of the S.R.s, published in Russia from the end of 1900 by 
the Union of Socialist-Revolutionaries (No. 1, dated 1900, actually 
appeared in January 1901). From January 1902 to December 



NOTES 



497 



1905, the paper was published abroad (in Geneva) as the official 
organ of the S.R. Party. 

In his outlines of the lecture on "The Agrarian Programme of 
the Socialist-Revolutionaries and of the Social-Democrats", Lenin 
gave a critique of the article "The Peasant Movement" and the 
appeal which appeared in Revolutsionnaya Rossiya No. 8, and 
also of a series of articles in Nos. 11-15 under the general title of 
"Programme Questions". p. 53 

48 Lenin's remarks on the pamphlet To All the Russian Peasantry 
from the Peasant Union of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, 1902. 
See Lenin Miscellany XIX, pp. 315-16. p. 56 

49 A reference to A. S. Martynov's pamphlet, The Workers and the 
Revolution, published by the Union of Russian Social-Democrats, 
Geneva, 1902. p. 56 

50 See quotation from A. N. Engelhardt's book, From the Countryside, 
in Lenin Miscellany XIX, p. 310. p. 56 

51 For a summary of these data see Lenin Miscellany XIX, p. 313, 
and for a commentary on them, the resume of the lecture (this 
volume, p. 67). p. 56 

52 For the quotation from V. V. (V. P. Vorontsov) see Lenin Miscellany 
XIX, pp. 311-12; Lenin gave a part of this quotation and a com- 
ment on it in his article "Reply to Criticism of Our Draft Pro- 
gramme" (see present edition, Vol. 6, p. 449). p. 57 



53 



54 



55 



56 



Lenin's remarks on the book Les syndicats agricoles et leur oeuvre 
par le comte de Rocquigny (Count de Rocquigny. Agricultural 
Syndicates and Their Activity). See Lenin Miscellany XXXII, 
pp. 24-49. p. 57 

There is a mistake in the name of the source. It should be Russkiye 
Vedomosti (Russian Recorder), to whose editorial V. Chernov 
referred in the discussion of Lenin's lecture on March 4, 1903. 
See Lenin Miscellany XIX, p. 270 and p. 282 (point 12). p. 64 

On February 4, 1903, Russkiye Vedomosti reported on a conference 
of landlords and tenants held in Dublin in December 1902. The 
conference produced a report stating the general terms on which, 
it believed, the land could be bought out from the landlords with 
the help of the Treasury. p. 66 

These figures characterise the different class sections of the peas- 
antry owning horses, and mean that 1.5 million farms of the 
peasant bourgeoisie had 6.5 million horses of the total of 14 mil- 
lion on the peasant farms; 2 million middle-peasant farms had 
4 million horses; 6.5 million semi-proletarian and proletarian 
farms (that is, the farms of the peasant poor) had 3.5 million 



498 



NOTES 



horses. For details see present edition, Vol. 6, p. 381, and Lenin 
Miscellany XIX, p. 343. p. 68 

57 These are two variants of the plan for an article or a lecture on 
"The Peasantry and Social-Democracy". There is no record of 
Lenin having done either. 

Lenin's notes on his study of the authors referred to in these 
plans are published in this volume, and also in Lenin 
Miscellanies XIX, XXXI and XXXII. p. 69 

58 The summary and critical remarks on S. Bulgakov's book, Capi- 
talism and Agriculture, were set down by Lenin in a notebook 
which he entitled, "Agrarian Material. Russian (and Foreign) 
Writings on the Agrarian Question". This preparatory material 
was extensively used in his work "The Agrarian Question and 
the 'Critics of Marx'", in which he gave a comprehensive critique 
of Bulgakov's views. p. 73 

59 See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, Moscow, 1966, p. 745. p. 73 

60 These figures mean that 55 farmers owned agricultural machines 
in 1855 and 236, in 1861, and that the number of those using 
machinery was 1,205. In 1871, the two categories were counted 
together and gave a total of 2,160, and in 1881, 4,222. p. 76 

61 In 1892, the British Parliament passed the Small Holdings Act 
in an attempt to keep the farmers in the countryside and revive 
the yeomanry, the small peasants ruined in the 18th and the 
early 19th centuries who had been a source of cheap labour for 
the big capitalist farms. The Act was not extensively applied and 
was of small practical importance. p. 77 

62 Instleute, Instmann — agricultural labourers in Germany signing 
long-term contracts and living in their own dwellings on land owned 
by big landowners. In addition to cash, they also received a part 
of the crop from a specified plot of land (half-tenancy). p. 78 

63 Middleman — a type of kulak acting between landlords and tenants 
in Ireland. They leased tracts of land from landlords (from 20 to 150 
acres and over), split them up into small parcels (from 1 to 5 acres) 
and leased them by the year to small tenants on harsh terms, p. 84 

64 P.S. — author of the article "Die neuere russische Gesetzge- 
bung iiber den Gemeindebesitz" ("The Latest Russian Communal 
Legislation") in Archiv fiir soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik 
(Archives of Social Legislation and Statistics), 7. Band, Berlin, 
1894. S. 626-52. p. 97 



65 



Lenin used this material in his work "The Agrarian Question and 
the 'Critics of Marx'" (see present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 140-44). p. 107 

See Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, Moscow, 1965, pp. 335 and 348. p. 108 



NOTES 



499 



67 Lenin gave a critical analysis of the data from M. Hecht's book, 
Drei Dorfer der badischen Hard (Three Villages in the Hard of 
Baden), Leipzig, 1895, in Chapter V of "The Agrarian Question and 
the 'Critics of Marx'" — "'The Prosperity of Advanced, Modern 
Small Farms'. The Baden Example" (see present edition, Vol. 5, 
pp. 159-67). p. 116 

68 In the first line of this note Lenin indicates a discrepancy in 
Hecht's data concerning the size of area under grain in Friedrich- 
sthal. On p. 28 the author says that the area under grain was 143 
Morgen= 51.48 ha, but on p. 21, the figure is said to be 18 per 
cent of the total area under crop which gives 46.44 ha. The second 
line of the note is a rough recalculation of 678 Morgen (the area 
under grain for Blankenloch on p. 28 of Hecht's book) into hec- 
tares, p. 122 

69 The first column of figures (dividend) shows the total area of 
land (in ha) for each village separately: Friedrichsthal, Blanken- 
loch and Hagsfeld; the second column (divisor) shows the average 
quantity of land (in ha) per family for each village; the third 
column gives the rough number of families in each village, p. 122 



70 



71 



72 



Lenin gave a part of his critical analysis of H. Auhagen's article 
"Ueber Gross- und Kleinbetrieb in der Landwirtschaft" ("On 
Large- and Small-Scale Production in Agriculture") in Chapter VI 
of "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'", entitled "The 
Productivity of a Small and a Big Farm. An Example from East 
Prussia" (see present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 168-69). p. 126 

The source analysed by Lenin contains a mistake: the figure 
should be 1,806.58 instead of 806.58. Lenin corrected it in "The 
Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'" (see present edition, 
Vol. 5, p. 168); there should be a corresponding change in the 
figure 1,965.08 and the percentages. p. 131 

While working on "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of 
Marx'", Lenin made use of material from an article by the German 
economist K. Klawki, "Ueber Konkurrenzfahigkeit des land- 
wirtschaftlichen Kleinbetriebes" ("The Competitive Capacity of 
Small-Scale Production in Agriculture") which appeared in Thiel's 
Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher (Thiel's Agricultural Yearbooks), 
Bd. XXVIII, Berlin, 1899. 

Klawki's article gives a description of 12 typical German farms 
(four each of the large, medium and small) operating in similar 
conditions. Lenin made a thorough examination of and critically 
reworked the data given in the article, which was a detailed inquiry 
but did not provide the necessary generalisations and correct 
conclusions. The data from Klawki's article were used by Lenin 
mainly in Chapter VI, "The Productivity of a Small and a Big 
Farm. An Example from East Prussia" (present edition, Vol. 5, 
pp. 167-81). Lenin showed the groundlessness of Bulgakov's 



500 



NOTES 



attempts to use Klawki's article to back up the bourgeois theory 
that small farms were superior to large farms. The scientific 
treatment of the data given in Klawki's inquiries, says Lenin, 
confirms the technical superiority of big farms and shows that the 
small farmer is overworked and underfed, being gradually de- 
graded to day labourer or farm-hand on the large farm; Lenin shows 
that as the number of small farms grows there is a spread of 
poverty and proletarisation among the peasantry. 

Lenin's conclusions, drawn after a thorough examination and 
reworking of the data in Klawki's article, are borne out by the 
mass data on peasant farms in Germany. In contrast to Klawki 
who failed to go into the substance of economic processes and 
ignored the comparative analysis of different groups of farms 
(basing his conclusions on indiscriminate averages), Lenin gave 
a profound Marxist analysis of the development of peasant farms 
under capitalism and brought out their various types. On the 
strength of these data, Lenin drew up a summarised table (see 
present edition, Vol. 5, p. 170). 

As a result of his careful verification and scientific tabulation 
of the data in Klawki's article, Lenin showed that the latter was 
wrong in calculating the comparative incomes on large and small 
farms. Lenin said the unscientific methods used by Klawki to show 
the superiority of the small farms were, in their main features 
practised by all bourgeois and petty-bourgeois economists. That 
is why an examination of all these methods, as exemplified by 
Klawki's inquiry, is of great interest. Lenin took the 
concrete statistical data with which Klawki operated to expose 
the false methods used in the processing and employment of 
statistical data, and also the completely unfounded conclusions 
drawn by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois economists concerning 
the laws governing agricultural development under capitalism. 

p. 148 

Landwirtschaftliche benutzte Fldche — cultivated farmland. In 
his preparatory material, Lenin uses the term in most cases without 
translating it into the Russian, and includes in it farmland in the 
strict sense of the term (that is, land under crops, meadows and 
best pastures) and also orchards, vegetable gardens and vineyards. 
In some cases, Lenin translates this term as "farmland" (see p. 192). 
On p. 358, Lenin indicates that the German source substituted the 
term "Ueberhaupt landwirtschaftliche Flache" for "landwirtschaft- 
liche benutzte Flache" to designate the same data. 

In his work New Data on the Laws Governing the Development 
of Capitalism in Agriculture. Part One. Capitalism and Agricul- 
ture in the United States of America, Lenin wrote: "In grouping 
farms by acreage, American statisticians take total acreage and 
not just the improved area, which would, of course, be the more 
correct method, and is the one employed by German statisticians" 
(see present edition, Vol. 22, p. 49). p. 144 

Scharwerker — an able-bodied member of the family or a non- 
member living in the household of the agricultural labourer and 



NOTES 



501 



bound by the contract between the head of the household and the 
landowner to work on the landowner's estate but paid by the 
head of the family. p. 148 

75 Deputant — a labourer who is paid a permanent annual cash 
wage and in addition gets specified payments in kind as part 
of his wage — a plot of land and a dwelling on the landowner's 
estate. p. 155 

76 Deputant's land — land made available by the landowner to an 
agricultural labourer under contract in part payment of his wages 
in kind. p. 158 

77 The manuscript is a notebook bearing this title on the cover in 
a coloured pencil. The extracts must have been made at the same 
time as those from Klawki's article (see pp. 138-59), because at the 
end of the extracts from Klawki's article there is a note saying 
"Cf. Brasse s article, especially pp. 292 and 297-98." p. 160 

78 Data from A. Souchon's book, La propriete paysanne {Peasant 
Property), was to be used in "The Agrarian Question and the 
'Critics of Marx'" and in the lectures on "Marxist Views of the 
Agrarian Question in Europe and Russia", which Lenin gave in 
Paris on February 23-26, 1903 and also for his work "The Peasantry 
and Social-Democracy" (see pp. 29, 41, 49, 70). p. 170 

79 Souchon's reference (text and footnote 1 on p. 24 of his book) 
to Ministere de V agriculture franqaise. Enquete de 1892, p. 247 
a 249 (The French Ministry of Agriculture, 1892 Inquiry). p. 170 

80 The Allotments Act was adopted on September 16, 1887, with the 
view of allotting small parcels of land to labourers. Souchon says 
the following: "The application of the Allotments Act in essence 
consists in giving the labourers tiny plots to enable them to eke 
out their earnings with some meagre agricultural resources, and at 
best to have one cow or a few sheep" (p. 151). p. 172 

81 Lenin intended to use the material on F. Maurice's book, L agri- 
culture et la question sociale. La France agricole et agraire 
(Agriculture and the Social Question. Agricultural and Agrarian 
France) Paris, 1892 in his work "The Agrarian Question and the 
'Critics of Marx'". See plans for this work on pp. 29, 31, 35, 36. p. 173 

82 Lenin read the book by A. von Chlapowo-Chlapowski, Die bel- 
gische Landwirtschaft im 19. Jahrhundert. Miinchener volkswirtschaft- 
liche Studien. Herausgegeben von L. Brentano und W. Lotz. 
Stuttgart, 1900 (Agriculture in Belgium in the 19th Century. 
Munich Economic Studies), when preparing "The Agrarian Question 
and the 'Critics of Marx'". This is indicated by his mention of the 
book in the preliminary plans for his work (see pp. 29, 32, 36). 
Lenin also intended to use this material in his lectures on the 
agrarian question in Paris (see p. 49). p. 178 



502 



NOTES 



The present volume contains a part of Lenin's remarks on the 
Baden Inquiry. 

The extracts from the Baden Inquiry are preparatory material 
for Chapter VII, "The Inquiry into Peasant Farming in Baden", 
in "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'" in which 
extensive use of the data is made for an analysis and character- 
istic of the class stratification of the peasantry under capitalism. 
Lenin said the materials of the Baden Inquiry made it possible 
to distinguish and bring out different groups of peasants. However, 
the authors failed to give any scientific grouping of peasant farms; 
instead of comparing the various groups of farms, they compared 
whole communities. This method of using indiscriminate averages, 
thereby glossing over the class distinctions within the peasantry 
was used by the "critics of Marx" in the agrarian question. 

Lenin gave a scientific characteristic of the class structure 
of the German countryside and for that purpose used the summarised 
data of the Baden Inquiry. He brought out three typical economic 
groups: the large-, the middle- and the small-peasant farms, and 
to do this he processed and analysed statistical data relating 
to 31 large 21 medium and 18 small farms. 

For the three typical groups of peasant farms, Lenin determined 
the average size of landholding, the average size of family and 
employment of hired labour, and also the results of economic 
operations in the form of net profit. In working out the data on 
landholdings and net profit, Lenin gave two calculation variants 
for all the 70 farms, and for the group minus the 10 farms in the 
three communities which had exceptionally large holdings. This 
method of bringing out typical phenomena, with a simultaneous 
verification of conclusions on the data for the whole aggregate 
of phenomena, is of great importance for statistical methods. 

As a result of his economic analysis, Lenin showed that the 
big-peasant farms using hired labour, permanent and casual, and 
obtaining the highest net profit per farm, were entrepreneurial 
and capitalist. Meanwhile, the small-peasant farms were hardly 
managing to make ends meet. On the strength of the scientifically 
processed data of the Baden Inquiry on the quantity of the key 
products consumed by the groups of peasant farms, Lenin showed 
that the small peasant was cutting back his consumption which 
was well below that of the middle and the big peasant. If the 
small peasant spent as much on cash products as the middle peas- 
ant did, he would run up a great debt and the middle peasant would 
also incur a debt if he spent as much as the big one. According 
to this, Lenin drew the conclusion that the "'net profit', not only 
of the small peasant, but also of the middle peasant is a pure 
fiction' (see present edition, Vol. 5, p. 185). In this way Lenin 
exposed the false method used by the "critics of Marx" to understate 
the plight of the small peasants, their malnutrition and ruin. 

On the strength of his analysis of the Baden Inquiry, Lenin 
concluded that the main features of the peasant economy in Ger- 
many were similar to those in Russia, and that the process of capi- 
talist development was leading to the formation of a minority 



NOTES 



503 



of capitalist farms operating with hired labour, and forcing the 
majority of peasants increasingly to seek subsidiary employment, 
that is, to become wage workers. "The differentiation of the 
peasantry," Lenin wrote, "reveals the profoundest contradictions 
of capitalism in the very process of their inception and their further 
development. A complete evaluation of these contradictions 
inevitably leads to the recognition of the small peasantry's blind 
alley and hopeless position (hopeless, outside the revolutionary 
struggle of the proletariat against the entire capitalist system)" 
(see present edition, Vol. 5, p. 190). In this way, Lenin showed 
the economic basis for the common interests of the working class 
and the small peasantry, and the need for their alliance in the 
struggle against capitalism. 

The material Lenin obtained as a result of his work on the 
Baden Inquiry, apart from its great political and economic 
importance, was also of major methodological importance for 
an understanding of the methods Lenin used to process and apply 
statistical data in Marxist economic analysis (for instance, the 
use of scientifically tabulated statistical groupings of peasant 
farms, determination and use on their basis of differentiated 
averages for income, consumption, etc., by class groups of peas- 
ants). Lenin's methods for processing statistical data are a valu- 
able contribution to the methodology of Marxist statistics. 

p. 180 

The extracts of data on 70 budgets mentioned here are a big table 
entitled "Summary of Data on 70 budgets from the Baden Inquiry", 
which included the statistical data from the Baden Inquiry proc- 
essed by Lenin. These extracts made in a notebook are at the 
Central Party Archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism 
under the C.P.S.U. Central Committee. When tabulating these 
data for large-, middle- and small-peasant farms, Lenin determined 
the average landholdings, size of family, and current receipts 
and outlays (showing the major items) and calculated the surplus 
or deficit by comparing the receipts and outlays. In addition, 
the table contains the indicators on labour (such as the expenditure 
of labour per hectare, hired labour, showing day labour separately), 
and also data on subsidiary earnings, etc. For an analysis of these 
data see present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 182-88. p. 181 

The text of Chapters VII and IX (as first published in the journal 
Obrazovaniye No. 2, 1906) of "The Agrarian Question and the 
'Critics of Marx'" shows that in that work Lenin intended to exam- 
ine French agricultural statistics and to give a critical analysis 
of the works of French economists. Judging by a note in Chapter IX 
(see present edition, Vol. 5, p. 215), he made a special study of 
the state of wine-growing in France. It is possible, therefore, that 
he used E. Seignouret's book, Essais d'economie sociale et agricole 
(Essays on Social and Agricultural Economics), to prepare his work 
"The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'" in June-Septem- 
ber 1901. p. 186 



504 



NOTES 



Lenin's notebook entitled "From German Agrarian Statistics" 
contains remarks on and extracts from Statistik des Deutschen 
Reichs, Neue Folge, Bd. 112. Die Landwirtschaft im Deutschen 
Reich nach der landwirtschaftlichen Betriebszahlung vom 14. VI. 1895, 
Berlin, 1898 (Statistics of the German Reich, New Series, Vol. 112. 
Agriculture in the German Reich According to the Agricultural 
Census of June 14, 1895). It shows how Lenin processed the data 
of the two agricultural censuses in Germany (1882 and 1895), 
which he used to prepare "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics 
of Marx'" (mainly chapters VIII and IX). The notebook dates to 
the first period of Lenin's writing of this work (1900-01). It con- 
tains some later extracts made by Lenin from the German agri- 
cultural census of 1907 in Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Band 212, 
Teil la. — Berufs- und Betriebszahlung vom 12. Juni 1907. Landwirt- 
schaftliche Betriebsstatistik, Berlin, 1909 and Band 212, Teil 2a, 
1910 (Statistics of the German Reich, Vol. 212, part la. — Census 
of Occupations and Enterprises of June 12, 1907. Statistics of Agri- 
cultural Enterprises, Berlin, 1909, and Vol. 212, part 2a, 1910). 
Lenin made these additions in 1910 for a work on German agri- 
culture. 

Lenin used the German agricultural statistics to show that the 
"critics" of Marx's economic doctrine were wrong when they 
said that in the West large farms were being supplanted by the 
middle- and small-peasant farms. 

Having reworked the German agrarian statistics, Lenin showed 
two processes of proletarisation of the peasantry: first, more and 
more peasants were being deprived of their land which meant 
that farmers were being transformed into landless labourers; 
second, the peasants were increasingly dependent on subsidiary 
earnings, that is, there was a growing integration of agriculture 
and industry, which marked the first stage of proletarisation. 

Lenin's treatment of German agrarian statistics sets a model 
for the scientific analysis and processing of statistical data. Lenin 
did not stop at grouping farms under one head (say, area), but 
went on to classify them under several heads, such as number of 
agricultural machines, area under special crops, etc., and used 
combined groupings, e.g., dividing each group (say, acreage) into 
subgroups by quantity of cattle and other characteristics. Lenin 
found that he had to rework and verify the statistical data he 
made use of; he reworked a number of tables (such as that charac- 
terising the concentration of commercial gardening, etc.), widening 
the intervals between the groups of farms to find the more typical, 
and at the same time bringing out the latifundia connected with 
industries (sugar refining, wine-making, etc.). Lenin calculated 
the percentages showing for instance, the share of separate groups 
of farms, determined the absolute averages showing the use of 
the major types of agricultural machines per 100 farms in each 
group of farms (grouped by acreage), etc. p. 189 

Lenin summarised these data on land concentration in wine- 
growing on the basis of the preceding table. The left column of 



NOTES 



505 



figures denotes the grouping of farms, the right column, the cor- 
responding grouping of land for these farms. The first pair of 
figures relates to vineyards under 20 ares; the second, to vine- 
yards of 20 to 50 ares; the third, to vineyards of 50 ares-5 hectares 
and over. p. 192 

Lenin examines the data on the number of cows on various farms 
in 1895 to characterise the concentration of cattle on the large 
farms. The total number of farms and the total number of cows 
on all farms of all three groups are given in the manuscript at 
the top of the table (for lack of space below). p. 213 

Fragmentary notes on separate sheets. 

In addition, the Central Party Archives of the Institute of 
Marxism-Leninism under the C.P.S.U. Central Committee has 
unpublished preparatory material relating to French agricultural 
statistics, which contains summaries and extracts from various 
sources. Among them are, above all, the collections Statistique 
agricole de la France. Resultats generaux de Venquete decennale de 
1892 (Agricultural Statistics of France. General Results of the 1892 
Decennial Inquiry), Statistique generate de la France. Resultats 
statistiques du Denombrement de 1896 (General Statistics of France. 
Statistical Results of the 1896 Census) and also the results of cen- 
suses for other years. Lenin also made many statistical extracts 
with explanations and critical remarks on the following books: 
K. Kautsky, Die Agrarfrage (The Agrarian Question); S. Bulgakov, 
Capitalism and Agriculture, Vol. II; F. Maurice. V agriculture et 
la question sociale. La France agricole et agraire (Agriculture and 
the Social Question. Agricultural and Agrarian France); A. Souchon, 
La propriete paysanne. Etude a" economie rurale (Peasant Property. 
An Essay on Agricultural Economy); N. Kudrin, The Peasant 
Question in France; The Bulletin of the Labour Bureau for 1901, 
etc. 

Most of the extracts from French statistics are summarised 
data, in particular, groupings of farms by acreage for various 
years. Lenin notes as a positive aspect of the French statistics 
the separate classification of the "active" (that is, the gainfully 
employed) population, and makes extensive extracts of data by 
categories within the "active" population. Lenin takes the same 
data from the above-mentioned book by Maurice and makes a com- 
parison of similar statistical data taken from various sources; 
he characterises these sources and draws conclusions on the annual 
changes in the numerical strength and share of each group (cate- 
gory) of the "active" population. 

This material from French agricultural statistics, reworked and 
summarised by Lenin, added up to a comprehensive picture of 
various aspects of farming among different class groups of peas- 
ant farms, confirming the Marxist propositions concerning the 
superiority of large farms and the growth of their role, and the 
proletarisation of the small peasants. p. 218 



506 



NOTES 



This summarised table was compiled by Lenin on the strength 
of the statistics of the countries concerned for the corresponding 
years. The separate data on Germany, Britain and the United 
States were taken from the Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Band 112; 
some of the data on France, from the same source, and others, 
from the Statistique agricole de la France. Resultats generaux 
de Venquete decennale de 1892. Tableaux; the data on Belgium 
from the Statistique de la Belgique. Agriculture. Recensement 
general de 1880 (Statistics of Belgium. Agriculture. General Census 
of 1880) and from Annuaire statistique de la Belgique 1896 (The 
Statistical Yearbook of Belgium for 1896); the data for Denmark, 
from Die Neue Zeit, XIX. Jahrgang 1900-1901, Band II, p. 623 
G. Bang's article, "Die landwirtschaftliche Entwicklung Dane- 
marks" ("Agricultural Development of Denmark"). p. 224 

Lenin gave the name of Dutch agricultural inquiry of 1890 to 
"Uitkomsten van het Onderzoek naar den Toestand van den Land- 
bouw in Nederland" ("The Results of the Inquiry into the State 
of Agriculture in the Netherlands") published in four volumes at 
the Hague in 1890. The results of this inquiry into 95 communities 
differed from similar inquiries in other countries in failing to 
provide full data, and, as Lenin remarked, failing to give summa- 
ries for all communities. But Lenin managed to extract interest- 
ing data from this source to characterise various groups of farms 
(typical communities) and also groups of farms (within separate 
communities) classified by area, the number of labourers and 
farm-hands, the number of horses and other characteristics. These 
data showed the capitalist nature of Dutch farming. p. 227 

Lenin intended to give a critique of E. Stumpfe's views on large- 
and small-scale production in agriculture in a number of his works 
(see this volume, pp. 42, 49, 70), in view of the fact that many 
of the "critics of Marx" referred to Stumpfe's works. p. 231 

G. Fischer's work, Die sociale Bedeutung der Maschinen in der 
Landwirtschaft (The Social Importance of Machinery in Agriculture) 
was studied by Lenin before Stumpfe's article "Ueber die Kon- 
kurrenzfahigkeit des kleinen und mittleren Grundbesitzes gegeniiber 
dem Grossgrundbesitze" ("On the Competitiveness of Small and 
Medium Land Holdings as Compared with Large Land Holdings"). 
In his extracts from this article, Lenin mentions Fischer's work 
as having been studied by him (see p. 238). p. 248 

Lenin's remark at the end of the text "No wonder its pages remain 
uncut (at the British Museum)" warrants the assumption that 
Lenin studied Turot's book during his stay in London, where 
Iskra was then being published, that is, not earlier than April 
1902. In London, Lenin made a study of the agrarian question 
in connection with the working out of the Party's agrarian pro- 



NOTES 



507 



95 



gramme; before giving his lectures and talk in Paris (in February- 
March 1903), he studied the French agricultural economy. Turot's 
book is also mentioned in Lenin's notes on the book by E. Lecou- 
teux (see Lenin Miscellany XXXII, p. 381). p. 257 

Lenin first mentioned Baudrillart in his extracts from Hertz's 
book The Agrarian Questions in Relation to Socialism (June-Sep- 
tember 1901). In his plans for "The Agrarian Question and the 
'Critics of Marx'" Lenin refers to Baudrillart from mention of 
him by Hertz and Bulgakov. In the outlines of his lectures on 
"Marxist Views of the Agrarian Question in Europe and Russia" 
(1903, before February 10 (23)), Lenin refers to Baudrillart's 
works as having been studied by him earlier. This volume 
contains Lenin's remarks on one book by H. Baudrillart, Les 
populations agricoles de la France. 3-me serie. Les populations du 
Midi {The Agricultural Population of France. Part 3. The Popula- 
tion of the South), Paris 1893. For extracts from and critical remarks 
on another of Baudrillart's books, Les populations agricoles de la 
France. La Normandie (The Agricultural Population of France. 
Normandy), Paris 1880 see Lenin Miscellany XXXII, pp. 82-105. 
Both take up the greater part of a notebook which Lenin entitled 
"Baudrillar £+Backhaus". p. 258 

The full name of the book is Comte de Rocquigny, Les syndicats 
agricoles et leur oeuvre (Agricultural Syndicates and Their Activity), 
Paris, 1900. For extracts with Lenin's critical remarks on 
this book see Lenin Miscellany XXXII, pp. 24-49. p. 261 

A reference to Elie Coulet's book, Le mouvement syndical et coopera- 
tif dans V agriculture frangaise. La federation agricole. (The 
Syndicalist and Co-operative Movement in French Agriculture. The 
Agricultural Federation). Montpellier, 1898. See p. 260. p. 261 

98 Rouanet, quoting Deschanel's speech in the Chamber of Deputies 
extolling the activity of the agricultural syndicates in favour of 
the labourers, said: "That is how Mr. Deschanel writes the history 
of agricultural syndicates to the applause of members of these 
syndicates who thrilled with delight when they suddenly learned 
of the excellent things they had done." p. 262 



96 



97 



99 



In his lectures, "Marxist Views of the Agrarian Question in Europe 
and Russia", and in his talks in Paris, Lenin mentions Nossig as 
one of "many writers who sympathise with the criticism of the 
Marxist theory rather than with this theory itself". He adds: 
"Their own data speak against them" (see present edition, Vol. 6, 
p. 345). Notes on the manuscript indicate that Lenin repeatedly 
returned to it. Thus, some words are retraced in blue pencil, appar- 
ently to make for easier reading; the translation of some words 
is given in plain pencil in brackets. p. 263 



508 



NOTES 



100 Lenin read E. David's book, Socialismus and Landwirtschaft 
(Socialism and Agriculture) soon after it was published. In a letter 
to G. V. Plekhanov on March 15, 1903, Lenin wrote: "I had already 
ordered David's book and am now reading it. Terribly watery, 
poor and trite" (present edition, Vol. 34, p. 150). In an article 
entitled "Les beaux esprits se rencontrent (Which May Be Inter- 
preted Roughly as: Birds of a Feather Flock Together)" (which 
was published in Iskra No. 38, April 15, 1903) Lenin criticised 
the main propositions of David's book (see present edition, Vol. 6, 
pp. 431-33). Lenin gave a full-scale critique of David's book — "the 
principal work of revisionism on the agrarian question" — in Chapter 
X of "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'" (present 
edition, Vol. 13, pp. 171-82). 

The nature of Lenin's underlinings shows that he returned to 
his remarks and brought out some places in blue and red pencils; 
in a second reading, he underlined in red pencil all the sources 
mentioned in the manuscript. p. 265 

101 A reference to Engels's article "The Peasant Question in France 
and Germany" (see Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, 
Moscow, 1962, pp. 420-40). p. 265 

102 Empty talk and unbridled flights of fancy, after a character in 
Gogol's Dead Souls, the landowner Manilov. p. 271 



103 A reference to the work of V. V. (V. P. Vorontsov), Progressive 
Trends in Peasant Farming, St. Petersburg, 1892, pp. 70-84 (see 
present edition, Vol. 3, pp. 274-75). p. 275 



104 A reference to Drechsler's data which he published as the results 
of two agricultural inquiries in 1875 and 1884. Lenin is referring 
to two works on this question: 1) "Die bauerlichen Zustande in 
einigen Teilen der Provinz Hannover" in Schrifen den Vereins fiLr 
Sozialpolitik . XXIV. 1883; 2) "Die Verteilung des Grundbesitzes 
und der Viehhaltung im Bezirke des landwirtschaftlichen Kreis- 
vereins Gottingen" in Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher herausgegeben 
von Dr. H. Thiel. XV. Band. Berlin, 1886 [1) "The Condition of 
Peasants in Some Parts of the Province of Hannover" in the Works 
of the Social Policy Association; 2) "Distribution of Land Property 
and Cattle in the Area of the Gottingen District Agricultural 
Society", in the Agricultural Yearbooks published by Dr. H. Thiel]. 
Lenin gave a critical analysis of the data from both works in 
Chapter XI of "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'" 
(see present edition, Vol. 13, pp. 183-94). p. 281 



NOTES 



509 



105 The notes and extracts from Hand and Machine Labor {Thirteenth 
Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labor, 1898, Vols. I and II), 
which first appeared in the Fourth Russian edition of Lenin's 
Collected Works, were made in a notebook containing extracts 
from books on economics, statistics and philosophy, and also 
from newspapers dated October 19 and 21, 1904. Lenin must have 
made these extracts at the Geneva Library in the autumn of 1904. 

The following reference is noted on the second page of the manu- 
script: "See examples on separate sheet." The examples taken 
from both volumes of the book, Hand and Machine Labor, and 
noted down by Lenin on a separate sheet are given on pp. 284-86 
of this volume. p. 282 

106 Lenin first mentions the work of Leo Huschke, Landwirtschaftliche 
Reinertrags-Berechnungen bei Klein-, Mittel- und Grossbetrieb dar- 
gelegt an typischen Beispielen Mittelthilringens {Calculation of Net 
Income in Agricultural Production on Small, Medium and Large 
Farms from Typical Examples in Central Thuringia) in two of his 
plans: "The Peasantry and Social-Democracy" (see p. 70). Lenin 
used some of the material published here in a footnote to Chapter 
VI, "The Productivity of a Small and a Big Farm. An Example 
from East Prussia", in the 1908 edition of "The Agrarian Question 
and the 'Critics of Marx'" (see present edition, Vol. 5, p. 179). 
He said he hoped "to return to Herr Huschke's interesting book" 
(ibid.). p. 287 

107 This is a notebook on the cover of which is written: "German 
Agrarian Statistics (1907)" and on top of that, in coloured pencil: 

"1) German agrarian statistics, 
"2) Russian agrarian statistics, 

"3) Statistics on strikes in Russia + Hungarian agrarian statistics." 

Lenin's study of the German agricultural census of 1907 relates 
to the period from 1910 (before September) to 1913 (after June). 

Lenin attached special importance to an analysis of German 
agrarian statistics in studying the laws governing the develop- 
ment of capitalism in agriculture and in exposing bourgeois apolo- 
getics in the agrarian question. "Germany belongs to the leading 
and most rapidly developing capitalist countries. Her censuses 
of agricultural enterprises are possibly on a higher level than 
anywhere else in Europe. It is understandable therefore why 
German and Russian writers displayed such interest in the results 
of the latest census of 1907 (the first and the second censuses were 
taken in 1882 and in 1895). Bourgeois economists and revisionists 
sing out in chorus that Marxism — for the hundredth and thousandth 
time! — has been refuted by the data of the census" (see Lenin 
Miscellany XXV, p. 127). That is why Lenin believed that it 
was necessary to make a detailed analysis of the German census 
of 1907. 

The material of German agrarian statistics was taken mainly 
from the three volumes of the collection Statistik des Deutschen 



510 



NOTES 



Reichs. Neue Folge. Band 112. Die Landwirtschaft im Deutschen 
Reich nach der landwirtschaftlichen Betriebszahlung vom 14. Juni 
1895, Berlin, 1898, Statistik des Deutschen Reichs. Band 202. 
Berufs- und Betriebszahlung vom 12. Juni 1907, Berufsstatistik, 
Berlin, 1909, Statistik des Deutschen Reichs. Band 212. Berufs- 
und Betriebszahlung vom 12. Juni 1907, Landwirtschaftliche Betriebs- 
statistik (Teil la; lb; 2a), Berlin, 1909-10 [Statistics of the German 
Reich, New Series, Vol. 112. Agriculture in the German Reich 
According to the Agricultural Census of June 14, 1895; Statistics 
of the German Reich, Vol. 202, Census of Occupations and Enter- 
prises of June 12, 1907; Occupation Statistics; Statistics of the German 
Reich, Vol. 212. Census of Occupations and Enterprises of June 12, 
1907. Statistics of Agricultural Enterprises (Part la, lb; 2a)]. 

This statistical material, like that which follows, was partially 
used by Lenin in the writing of his article "The Capitalist System 
of Modern Agriculture" (see present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 423-46). 
Lenin also planned to use the material of German agrarian sta- 
tistics in another article on German agriculture. 

The material of German agrarian statistics contains numerous 
extracts from tables, parts of tables and separate statistical data 
not only from the above-mentioned collection, Statistics of 
the German Reich, but also from articles by Zahn, Schmelzle 
and others. Some data on fertilisers were taken from French 
sources. 

The material of German agrarian statistics which Lenin proc- 
essed and systematised illustrated various forms of capitalist 
development in agriculture. 

On the strength of the extensive statistical data on the agricultur- 
al population contained in German agrarian statistics, Lenin 
studied the proletarisation of the peasantry. The data on the use 
of machinery, the percentage of farms with draught cattle, and 
the composition of the draught animals, the growth of agricultural 
industries, dairy farming, etc., showed the development of large- 
scale capitalist production. 

Special interest attaches to Lenin's explanations to the table 
(taken from the results of the 1907 Census in Volume 202 of the 
Statistics of the German Reich) which classifies the population by 
main occupation of the gainfully employed (see pp. 342-45, 370). 
The principle of classifying the rural population of Germany, 
according to the data for 1882 and 1895, into three main groups 
(I, II and III) was described and substantiated by Lenin in his 
work "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics of Marx'" (present 
edition, Vol. 5, pp. 217-22) which is indicated on p. 346 ("Distribu- 
tion (in thousands) adopted in The Agrarian Question, p. 244"). 

For technical reasons, some tables from German statistics in 
this volume are given in parts. p. 297 



The data under the heads bracketed in the table were used by 
Lenin to calculate the number of hired labourers. See the last 
column of the table (p. 323). p. 320 



NOTES 



511 



A reference to the article by Fr. Zahn, "Deutschlands wirtschaft- 
liche Entwicklung unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Volks- 
zahlung 1905 sowie Berufs- und Betriebszahlung 1907" ("The 
Economic Development of Germany with Special Account of 
the 1905 Census of Population and the 1907 Census of Occupations 
and Enterprises") published in Annalen des Deutschen Reichs 
{Annals of the German Reich) No. 7 for July and No. 8 for August 
1910. p. 324 



A reference to Schmelzle's article, "Die landliche Grundbesitz- 
verteilung, ihr Einfluss auf die Leistungsfahigkeit der Landwirt- 
schaft und ihre Entwicklung" ("Distribution of Rural Land Hold- 
ings, Its Influence on the Productivity and Development of 
Agriculture") published in Annalen des Deutschen Reichs No. 6 
for June 1913. p. 335 



The two following tables giving the data for 1882 and 1895 are 
taken from Chapter IX of "The Agrarian Question and the 'Critics 
of Marx'" published in the collection The Agrarian Question. 
Part I, St. Petersburg, 1908 (see present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 218-20). 
In the first table, Lenin made a correction of two misprints in 
the collection: he switched the designation of the categories "c 2)" 
and " 3)". p. 346 



Lenin gives the data from Statistik des Deutschen Reichs. Band 211. 
Berufs- und Betriebszahlung vom 12. Juni 1907 . Berufsstatistik. 
Abteilung X. "Die berufliche und soziale Gliederung des deutschen 
Volkes". Berlin, 1913 (Statistics of the German Reich. Vol. 211. 
Census of Occupations and Enterprises of June 12, 1907. Occupation 
Statistics. Section X. "Occupational and Social classification of 
the German People"). p. 355 



A notebook, entitled Austrian Agricultural Statistics, containing 
the first document under the same title and in it pages 4 and 5 
of the original (see pp. 388-95). p. 369 



This plan reflects the three stages of Lenin's work on the material 
based on his study of the data of the 1907 German agricultural 
census and collected in notebook, German Agrarian Statistics (see 
pp. 297-371). 

The first stage was the compilation of a general plan for the 
processing of these data under 13 heads (0-12). The second stage 
was the drawing up of the plan and the writing of the first article, 
"The Capitalist System of Modern Agriculture", in which Lenin 
dealt with the first five (0-4) points of the general plan (see present 
edition, Vol. 16, pp. 423-46). The other points remained for an- 



512 



NOTES 



other article. The third stage was the drafting of the plan for another 
article consisting of the five points or topics. This article was 
never written. 

The time it took Lenin to work on the plan as a whole is deter- 
mined by the time it took him to collect the material on German 
agrarian statistics on the basis of the 1907 Census, that is, from 1910 
to 1913. p. 372 



This and the following markings in the margin on the left, opposite 
the various points of the general plan signify the numeration 
and size of the chapters of Lenin's article "The Capitalist System 
of Modern Agriculture" (article I) (present edition Vol. 16, pp. 423- 
46), which was written on the basis of this plan. The Roman numer- 
als (from I to VII) designate the chapters of the article, the Arabic 
numerals (from 1 to 87), boxed and in round brackets, the pages 
of the manuscript of the article. The left column of figures in 
the numeration of the points in the general plan, added in blue 
pencil, coincides with the numeration of the chapters of the article. 

p. 372 



Material on Hungarian agrarian statistics, which Lenin used in 
part in his article, "The Capitalist System of Modern Agriculture" 
(see present edition, Vol. 16, pp. 443-45), was published in Lenin 
Miscellany XXXI, pp. 274-97. p. 373 



The reference to 1895 means a comparison with the data of the 
German agricultural census of 1895. p. 373 

See Note 104. p. 373 

A list of statistical tables given by Lenin in "The Capitalist 
System of Modern Agriculture" (article one), with an indication 
of the manuscript pages containing the tables (see present edition 
Vol. 16, pp. 433, 438, 440, 444, 445, 446). Tables 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 
are on pages of the manuscript which have not been found. p. 375 



Extracts of data from Danish statistics date approximately to 
1911, a fact established from the date of the latest of the Danish 
statistical publications quoted here by Lenin, The Statistical 
Tables for the 1909 Census. 

Lenin took down the data to show the concentration of capital 
and production in Danish agriculture. He tabulated all the farms 
into four big groups (under 3.3 ha — proletarian and semi-prole- 
tarian farms 3.3 to 9.9 ha— small peasants; 9.9 to 29.7 ha— big 
peasants and peasant bourgeoisie; and over 29.7 ha— capitalist 



NOTES 



513 



agriculture) to show the distinction between the economic types 
of farms. The two lower groups (63.4 per cent of all farms) had, in 
1909, 11.7 per cent of the land and 17.2 per cent of the big horned 
cattle; and the two higher groups (36.6 per cent of all farms) had 
88.2 per cent of the land and 82.8 per cent of all horned cattle. 
This revealed the typical capitalist stratification of farms and 
the concentration on the entrepreneurial farms of almost 90 per 
cent of the land and more than 80 per cent of the big horned cattle. 
Lenin makes special mention of the increase in the number of 
large farms from 1898 to 1909. In that period, the total number 
of farms increased by 1.7 per cent, while farms with 15-49 head 
of big horned cattle went up by 35 per cent, and those with 50 
and more head, by 46.3 per cent. Lenin used the data on the com- 
parative quantities of horned cattle in Denmark, Germany and 
Russia per 1,000 population, per 1,000 hectares, and per square 
kilometre to show the high level of livestock farming in Denmark. 

p. 376 

The extracts from Austrian agricultural statistics apparently 
date to the period from 1910 to 1912, for Volume 28 of Oesterrei- 
chisches Statistisches Handbuch (The Austrian Statistical Handbook) 
mentioned by Lenin in the beginning was issued in 1910, and 
Volume 29, mentioned in a later addition on the same page of the 
manuscript, was published not earlier than November 1911 (the 
Preface to the volume was dated October 1911). 

The materials on Austrian agricultural statistics contain mainly 
data characterising area, personnel in agricultural and forest enter- 
prises, the use of agricultural machinery and the maintenance of 
draught animals. The characteristic of agricultural and forest 
enterprises in respect of the area of cultivated land and the use 
of agricultural machinery is given as a statistical grouping in the 
form of a combined table reflecting the interconnection between 
the two. The second half of the table (see p. 385) was compiled by 
Lenin from a number of tables in the said collection with the view to 
further dividing up the medium group of farms (2-100 ha) into 
5 subgroups by area. 

The grouping of agricultural and forest enterprises by productive 
area (see pp. 388-95) classifies the enterprises with regard to 
hired labour, Lenin obtained the statistical data on strictly 
family farms and on farms with persons not belonging to the 
family by reworking the data of Table 6 from the collection 
Oesterreichische Statistik. The material on Austrian statistics 
illustrated the development of capitalism in agriculture and was 
apparently intended by Lenin for use in later works on the 
agrarian question. p. 383 

Schmelzle's article, "Die landliche Grundbesitzverteilung, ihr 
Einfluss auf die Leistungsfahigkeit der Landwirtschaft und ihre 
Entwicklung" ("Distribution of Rural Land Holdings, Its Influence 



514 



NOTES 



on the Productivity and Development of Agriculture"), was pub- 
lished in Annalen des Deutschen Reichs fiir Gesetzgebund, Verwaltung 
und Volkswirtschaft No. 6. This issue was published on June 10 
1913, so that Lenin could not have read the article before July 
1913. p. 397 

123 A reference to the work of H. Quante. "Grundkapital und Betriebs- 
kapital". Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher von H. Thiel. XXXIV. 
Band, Heft 6. Berlin, 1905. S. 925-72 ("Land Capital and Produc- 
tion Capital". H. Thiel's Agricultural Yearbooks). p. 397 

124 A reference to Dr. K. Vogeley's work, Landwirtschaftliche Betriebs- 
verhaltnisse Rheinhessens. Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschafts- 
Gesellschaft. Heft 133 (Production Relations in the Agriculture 
of the Rhine-Hesse. Transactions of the German Agricultural Society, 
Part 133). p. 397 

125 A quotation from Schmelzle of Dr. A. Burg's work, Beitrage 
zur Kenntnis des landwirtschaftlichen Betriebs im Vogelsberg. 
Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft. Heft 123 
(A Contribution to the Study of Agricultural Production in Vogels- 
berg. Transactions of the German Agricultural Society, Part 123). 

p. 398 

126 The extracts from E. Laur's book date approximately to 1913, 
since they were made by Lenin between two entries dating to 1913. 
Lenin made use of the statistical data from 1886 to 1906, which 
enabled him to give a comprehensive characteristic of tendencies 
in the development of Swiss agriculture in that period. Together 
with other material, these data were apparently intended by 
Lenin for a continuation of his work, New Data on the Laws 
Governing the Development of Capitalism in Agriculture. p. 402 

127 The manuscript of Lenin's remarks on E. Jordi's book, The Electric 
Motor in Agriculture, is among extracts from newspapers and 
journals for September 1914, in a notebook entitled "Engels, 
Savoy, etc., Certain Other Things, and Extracts on War", p. 406 

128 The documents published below are preparatory material for 
Lenin's New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of 
Capitalism in Agriculture. Part One. Capitalism and Agriculture 
in the United States of America. This material consists of two 
parts: the first contains diverse variants of the plan for this work, 
and the second, statistical material from the American censuses 
taken in 1900 and 1910. "Remarks on American Agricultural 
Statistics" is an introduction to this statistical material (see 
pp. 416-20). 

Lenin wrote the variants of the plan on the back of sheets con- 
taining his article, in German, "Der Opportunismus und der 



NOTES 



515 



Zusammenbruch der zweiten Internationale" ("Opportunism and 
the Collapse of the Second International") (see present edition, 
Vol. 22, pp. 108-20). The sheets are not numbered, so that the 
variants of the plan are arranged as they approximate the final 
plan given in the contents of the published book. Apart from 
complete variants of the plan, there are fragments of it on the 
same sheets. 

"Remarks on American Agricultural Statistics" contain impor- 
tant methodological propositions on the study of types of farms 
and comparative characteristics of farm groupings under three 
heads: area, principal source of income, and gross cash income. 
Lenin emphasises the importance of grouping farms under the 
last two heads, and shows the limits of application and the short- 
comings of the grouping by area alone, for it glosses over the 
displacement of small-scale production (lumping together a mino- 
rity of growing farms with a mass of backward farms going to 
seed). In Lenin's grouping of farms by income, the land factor 
is subordinate to capital. The specific feature of Lenin's methodo- 
logy in this case was the grouping (in a combined table) by two 
factors, which resulted in a comparison of the statistical data 
on farm area within the limits of one type of farm. Lenin believed 
the insufficient use of combined tables to be a flaw in American 
statistics, which failed to use combined tables showing type of 
farms (they gave 7-10 groups of farms, which Lenin reduced to 
three main groups, corresponding to three types of farm). On the 
1900 Census Lenin wrote: "...here too, no classification gives all 
the essential characteristics of the type and size of farm" (present 
edition, Vol. 22, p. 61). 

The second part of the preparatory material — "American Agrar- 
ian Statistics"— consists of the statistical data of the two American 
censuses taken in 1900 and 1910 processed by Lenin. They are: 
Census Reports. Volume V. Twelfth Census of the United States, 
taken in the year 1900. Agriculture. Part 1. Washington 1902, 
and Thirteenth Census of the United States, taken in the year 1910. 
Volume V. Agriculture. 1909 and 1910. Washington, 1914. On the 
back of the first three pages of extracts from the Thirteenth Census 
of 1910, there are extracts from Volume IV of the same census 
(Statistics of Occupations). In addition, there are some data drawn 
from the Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, 
1912. 

Lenin starts by giving a list of the extracts from the 1900 Census. 
The extracts from the Twelfth Census of 1900 take up 12 numbered 
pages (with certain phrases or words given in bold type or under- 
lined), and those from the Thirteenth Census of 1910, 16 pages. 
In addition, there are several separate sheets with various cal- 
culations made by Lenin (e.g., the percentage of farms reporting 
horses in 1900-10). The results of these calculations are given in 
Lenin's New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of 
Capitalism in Agriculture (see present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 91-92). 



516 



NOTES 



Of the greatest value in Lenin's study and demonstration of 
capitalist development in general, and the displacement of small- 
scale by large-scale production in industry and agriculture, in 
particular, was the material of the Twelfth Census of 1900, which 
yielded the three different methods of grouping farms (by principal 
source of income, by acreage, and by value of the farm product — 
gross cash income). But here, as was noted above, none of the 
groupings is fully applied in respect of all the essential characteris- 
tics of the type and size of farm. In the results of the 1910 census, 
Lenin pointed out, even the traditional grouping of farms by 
acreage was not given in full. Lenin filled these gaps: he drew up 
a comprehensive (summary) table giving a comparison of the 
three groupings. In his analysis, Lenin showed that grouping 
by acreage (a method favoured by bourgeois statisticians) was limit- 
ed and insufficient, and proved the need to modify the methods 
of inquiry, grouping, etc., in accordance with the forms of capi- 
talist penetration into agriculture. 

As has been said, the material of the Thirteenth Census of 1910 
was poorer in content, so that Lenin was unable to make the same 
groupings, analyse them and draw the relevant conclusions. He 
made use of the absolute and part of relative data of the 1910 
Census for a comparison. On pp. 442-45 of this volume, apart from 
data on agriculture, he gives data on population in the three main 
divisions of the United States: the industrial North, the former 
slave-holding South, and the homestead West; for these three 
main divisions Lenin wrote out data characterising the commercial 
character of livestock farming, notably, the concentration of 
livestock owned in the North. Lenin arrives at a general conclu- 
sion for the country as a whole that small and medium farms 
are being supplanted, and that large capitalist farms are growing. 
Further, on pp. 478-79 there are statistical data which Lenin used 
to refute the assertions of bourgeois economists that the law of 
the large-scale production supplanting the small-scale does not 
apply to agriculture. These data served as the basis for §15 ("A Com- 
parative Picture of Evolution in Industry and Agriculture") 
of Lenin's New Data on the Laws Governing the Development 
of Capitalism in Agriculture. He arrives at the conclusion that 
"there is a remarkable similarity in the laws of evolution" in 
industry and agriculture. 

Lenin began to work on the American 1900 statistics in Paris 
(in 1912), but did not finish working on this volume. In a letter 
to Isaac A. Hourwich, Washington, from Cracow on February 
27, 1914, Lenin wrote: "When I made a study of American agri- 
cultural statistics (Vol. V. Agriculture — Census of 1900) in Paris, 
I found a great deal of interesting matter. Now, in Cracow, I am 
unable to obtain these publications" (see present edition, Vol. 36, 
p. 271). In a letter from Poronin to N. N. Nakoryakov in New 
York on May 18, 1914, he said he had received Volume V of the 
1900 Census and asked for Volume V of the Thirteenth Census of 
1910 (see present edition, Vol. 35, p. 140). 



NOTES 



517 



New Data on the Laws Governing the Development of Capital- 
ism in Agriculture. Part One. Capitalism and Agriculture in the 
United States of America (see present edition, Vol. 22, pp. 13- 
102) was apparently completed in 1915, and in January 1916 
sent from Berne to Maxim Gorky for Parus Publishers. In a letter 
he sent at the same time, Lenin wrote: "I have tried in as popular 
a form as possible to set forth new data about America which, 
I am convinced, are particularly suitable for the popularising of 
Marxism and substantiating it by means of facts.... I should like 
to continue, and subsequently also to publish, a second part — 
about Germany" (see present edition, Vol. 35, p. 212). The book 
was first published in 1917 by Zhizn i Znaniye Publishers, p. 408 



519 



INDEX OF SOURCES 
A 

Annalen des Deutschen Reichs fur Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volks- 
wirtschaft, Miinchen-Berlin, 1910, N 6, S. 401-441; N 7, S. 481-518; 
N 8, S. 561-598; 1911, N 3-4, S. 161-248.— 324-25, 326-27, 340-41, 
353-54, 355. 

—1913, N 6, S. 401-434.— 335, 397-401. 

Annuaire statistique de la Belgique. Vingt-septieme annee. — 1896. 

T. 27. Bruxelles, J.-B. Stevens 1897. X, 383, XII p.; 4 carte. 

(Ministere de l'lnterieur et de l'lnstruction Publique). — 224. 
Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft. Hft. 118. Be- 

triebsverhaltnisse der deutschen Landwirtschaft. Stuck I. Verfasser: 

P. Teicke, W. Ebersbach, E. Langenbeck. Berlin, 1906. XXVI, 

225 S.; 22 Tab.— 398. 
Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft. Hft. 123. Betriebs- 

verhaltnisse der deutschen Landwirtschaft. Stuck II. Verfasser: 

H. Aussel, A. Burg. Berlin, 1906 [1], 171 S.; 6 Tab.— 398. 
Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft. Hft. 130. Betriebs- 

verhaltnisse der deutschen Landwirtschaft. Stuck III. Verfasser: 

P. Gutknecht. Berlin, 1907. 215 S., 5 Tab.— 398. 
Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft. Hft. 133. Betriebs- 

verhaltnisse der deutschen Landwirtschaft. Stuck IV. Verfasser: 

G. Stenkhoff, B. Franz, K. Vogeley, Berlin, P. Parey, 1907. 139, 

117 S.; 15 Tab.— 397, 398. 
Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft. Hft. 218. Betriebs- 

verhaltnisse der deutschen Landwirtschaft. Stuck XXI. Verfasser: 

O. Sprenger. Berlin, 1912. 80 S.; 2 Tab.— 398, 400. 
Archiv fur soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik, Berlin, 1894, Bd. VII, 

S. 626-652.-97 
—1900, Bd. XV, S. 406-418.— 30, 31, 33, 107-10, 254. 
Auhagen, H. "Uber GroB- und Kleinbetrieb in der Landwirtschaft." — 

In: Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbucher, Berlin, 1896, Bd. XXV, 

S. 1-55.-31, 34, 39, 42, 49, 69, 70, 101, 104, 106 126-37, 252, 

267, 268, 269, 271, 281. 
Aus dem literarischen NachlafJ von K. Marx, F. Engels und F. Lassalle. 

Hrsg. von F. Mehring. Bd. III. Stuttgart, Dietz, 1902, VI, 491 S.— 

41, 50, 56, 57, 60. 
Avenel, G. Histoire economique de la propriete, des salaires, des denrees 

et de tous les prix en general depuis Van 1200 jusque'en Fan 1800. 

T. I. Paris, Imprimerie nationale, 1894. XXVII, 726 p.— 81. 



520 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



B 

Backhaus, A. Agrarstatistische Untersuchungen iiber den preuflischen 

Osten im Vergleich zum Westen. Berlin, P. Parey, 1898. 303 S. 

(Berichte des landwirtschaftlichen Instituts der Universitat K6- 

nigsberg i. Pr. III).— 108. 
— "Die Arbeitsteilung in der Landwirtschaft." — In: Jahrbiicher fiir 

Nationalokonomie und Statistik, Jena, 1894, Folge 3, Bd. 8, S. 321- 

374.-75. 

Bang, G. "Die landwirtschaftliche Entwicklung Danemarks." — In: 
Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart, 1900-1901, Jg. XIX, Bd. II, N 45 S. 585- 
590; N 46, S. 622-631.— 225, 277, 280. 

Baudrillart , H. Les populations agricoles de la France. La Normandie 
(passe et present). Enquete faite au nom de l'Academie des sciences 
morales et politiques. Paris, Hachette et C ie , 1880. XII, 428 p.— 
29, 30, 31, 35, 41, 49, 70, 97, 100, 258, 259. 

— Les populations agricoles de la France. [2-eme serie]. Maine, Anjou, 
Touraine, Poitou, Flandre, Artois, Picardie, Ile-de-France. Passe 
et present. Paris, Guillaumin et C ie , 1888. XII, 643 p.— 29, 30, 

31, 35, 41, 49, 70, 97, 100, 258, 259. 

— Les populations agricoles de la France. 3-e serie. Les populations 
du Midi (Mediterranee, Alpes, Pyrenees, Massif Central), Provence, 
Comte de Nice, Comtat Venaissin, Roussillon, Comte de Foix 
Languedoc passe et present. Paris, Guillaumin et Ci e , 1893. VI, 
655 p.— 29, 30, 31, 35, 41, 49, 70, 97, 100, 258, 259. 

Bauerliche Zustande in Deutschland. Berichte, veroffentlicht vom 
Verein fiir Sozialpolitik. Bd. 1-3. Leipzig, Duncker u. Humblot, 
1883. 3 Bd. (Schriften des Vereins fiir Sozialpolitik. XXII-XXIV).— 

29, 30, 39, 41, 42, 49, 101, 246. 

— Bd. I. X, 320 S.— 31, 34, 39, 84, 114, 115. 

— Bd. 2. VIII, 344 S.— 31, 34, 39, 84. 

— Bd. 3. VI, 381 S.; 2 Tab.— 281, 373, 374. 

Bensing, F. Der Einflu/3 der landwirtschaftlichen Maschinen auf Volks- 

und Privatwirtschaft. Breslau, 1897. IX, 205 S.— 88-95, 108, 238 

249, 250, 270, 271. 
Bernstein, E. Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben 

der Sozialdemokratie. Stuttgart, Dietz, 1899. X, 188 S.— 266. 
Blondel, G. Etudes sur les populations rurales de V 'Allemagne et la 

crise agraire. Avec neuf cartes et plans. Paris, L. Larose et Forcel, 

1897. XII, 522 p.; 9 carte.— 31, 34. 
Bottger, H. Die Sozialdemokratie auf dem Lande. Ein Beitrag zur 

deutschen Agrarpolitik. Leipzig, E. Diederichs, 1900. 155 S. — 29 

30, 32, 37, 41, 51, 57, 60, 64, 65. 

Brase-Linderode. "Untersuchungen iiber den EinfluB der Verschuldung 
landlicher Besitztiimer auf deren Bewirtschaftung". — In: Land- 
wirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher, Berlin, 1899, Bd. XXVIII, S. 253- 
310.— 159, 160-68. 

Brentano, L. Agrarpolitik. Ein Lehrbuch. I. Teil: Theoretische Einlei- 
tung in die Agrarpolitik. Stuttgart. J. G. Cotta, 1897. 145, VI S.— 

32, 75. 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



521 



Brinkmann, F. Die Grundlagen der englischen Landwirtschaft und die 
Entwicklung ihrer Produktion seit dem Auftreten der internationalen 
Konkurrenz. Hannover, M. und H. Schaper, 1909. 128 S.— 398. 

Buchenberger, A. Agrarwesen und Agrarpolitik. Bd. I-II. Leipzig 
C. F. Winter, 1892-1893. 2 Bd. (Lehr- und Handbuch der poli- 
tischen Okonomie. Hauptabteilung III. Teil II). — 69, 70. 



C 

Census reports. Vol. 5. Twelfth Census of the United States, taken in 
the year 1900. Agriculture. P. I. Washington, United States Census 
Office, 1902. CCXXXVI, 767 p.; 18 plates.— 408, 414, 421-41, 
478-79. 

Chiapowo-Chiapowski, A. Die belgische Landwirtschaft im 19. Jahrhun- 
dert. Stuttgart, J. G. Cotta, 1900. X, 184 S. (Miinchener volkswirt- 
schaftliche Studien. 37. Stuck).— 29, 32, 36, 41, 49, 178-79. 

Conrad, J. "Agrarstatistik." — In: Handworterbuch der Staatswissen- 
schaften. 3. ganzlich umgearb. Aufl. Bd. I. Jena, G. Fischer, 1909, 
S. 237-255.-362-363. 

— Die Stellung der landwirtschaftlichen Zolle in den 1903 zu schliessen- 
den Handelsvertragen. Beitrage zur neuesten Handelspolitik 
Deutschlands, herausgegeben vom Verein fur Sozialpolitik. 
Leipzig, 1900. 155 S.— 266. 

Coulet, E. he mouvement syndical et cooperatif dans V agriculture fran- 
qaise. La federation agricole. Montpellier-Paris, Masson et C le , 
1898, VI, 230 p.— 260, 261. 



D 

[Danielson, N.] Die Volkswirtschaft in Rutland nach der Bauern- 
Emancipation. Autorisierte Ubersetzung aus dem Russischen von 
G. Polonsky. T. I-II. Miinchen, 1899. 2 T. Author: Nicolai— on.— 
97, 105. 

[Danmarks Statistik]. Statistisk Tabelvaerk, Aeldste Raekke, 5 Haefte... 
1838. Udgivet af det Statistiske Bureau. Kobenhavn, [18401. — 376. 

— Statistisk Tabelvaerk, 3-de Raekke, 3-e Bind, indeholdende Tabeller 
over Kreaturholdet i Kongeriget Danmark og Hertugdommet Slesvig 
den 15^ e Juli 1861 og i Hertugdommet Holsteen og Hertugdommet 
Lauenborg den 15^ e Februar 1862. Udgivet af det Statistiske Bureau. 
Kobenhavn, Bogtrykkeri, 1864. XXXII, 100 S.— 376. 

— Statistisk Tabelvaerk, 3-de Raekke, 10 Bind, indeholdende Tabeller 
over Kreaturholdet i Kongeriget Danmark den 16^ e Juli 1866. Udgivet 
af det Statistiske Bureau. Kobenhavn, Bogtrykkeri, 1868. XI, 
135 S.— 376. 

— Statistisk Tabelvaerk, 3-de Raekke, 24 Bind, indeholdende Oversigter 
over Kreaturholdet i Kongeriget Danmark den 15^ e Juli 1871. Udgivet 
af det Statistiske Bureau. Kobenhavn, Bogtrykkeri, 1873. XI, 
133 S.— 376. 



522 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



— Statistisk Tabelvaerk, 4-de Raekke, Litra C, N 1. Kreaturholdet 
den 17de J u li 1876. Udgivet af det Statistiske Bureau. Kobenhavn 
Bogtrykkeri, 1878. XXI, 136 S.— 376. 

[Danmarks Statistik]. Statistisk Tabelvaerk, 4-de Raekke, Litra C, 
N 3. Kreaturholdet den 15 de Juli 1881. Udgivet af det Statistiske 
Bureau. Kobenhavn, Bogtrykkeri, 1882. XXVIII, 135 S.— 376. 

— Statistisk Tabelvaerk, 4-de Raekke, Litra C, N 6. Kreaturholdet 
den 16 de Juli 1888. Udgivet af det Statistiske Bureau. Kobenhavn 
Bogtrykkeri, 1889. LXIV, 151 S. — 376, 377, 378-79, 380, 381 
382. 

— Statistisk Tabelvaerk, 4-de Raekke, Litra C, N 8. Kreaturholdet den 
15 de Juli 1893. Udgivet af det Statistiske Bureau. Kobenhavn 
Bogtrykkeri, 1894. LXIII, 163 S.— 376, 377, 378-79. 

— Statistisk Tabelvaerk, 5-de Raekke, Litra C, N 2. Kreaturholdet den 
15 de Juli 1898. Udgivet af Statens Statistiske Bureau. Kobenhavn, 
Bogtrykkeri, 1901. 52, 144 S.— 376, 377, 378-79. 

— Statistisk Tabelvaerk, 5-de Raekke, Litra C, N 5. Kreaturholdet 
i Danmark den 15 de Juli 1909. Udgivet af Statens Statistiske 
Bureau. Kobenhavn, Bogtrykkeri, 1911. 51, 174 S. — 376, 377, 
378-81. 

— Statistiske Meddelelser, 4-de Raekke, 5-e Bind, 4-de Haefte. Kreatur- 
taellingen i Danmark den 15 de Juli 1898. Udgivet af Statens Sta- 
tistiske Bureau. Kobenhavn, Bogtrykkeri, 1899. 15 S.— 376, 377, 
378-79. 

— Statistiske Meddelelser, 4-de Raekke, 16-de Bind, 6-e Haefte. Krea- 
turholdet i Danmark den 15 d e Juli 1903. Udgivet af Statens Sta- 
tistiske Bureau. Kobenhavn, Bogtrykkeri, 1904. 3, 60 S.— 376, 377, 
378-79. 

David, E. "Bauerliche Barbaren." — In: Sozialistische Monatshefte, 

Berlin, 1899, N 2, S. 62-71.— 31, 34, 100, 111-15, 265. 
— Sozialismus und Landwirtschaft . Bd. 1. Die Betriebsfrage. Berlin, 

Verl. der Sozialistischen Monatshefte, 1903. 703 S.— 41, 44, 48, 
^ 69, 70, 191, 238, 265-80, 281. 
— "Zur Beweisfiihrung unserer Agrarier." — In: Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart, 

1894-1895, Jg. XIII, Bd. II, N 36, S. 293-303.— 240. 
Deherain, P. -P. Les plantes de grande culture. Ble, pommes de terre, 

betteraves fourrageres et betteraves de distillerie, betteraves a sucre. 

Paris, Carre et Naud, 1898. XVIII, 236 S.— 264. 
Delbriick, M. "Die deutsche Landwirtschaft an der Jahrhundertswen- 

de."— In: Preufiische Jahrbucher, Berlin, 1900, Bd. 99 S. 193- 

205.— 109-10. 

Die Deutsche Volkswirtschaft am Schlusse des 19 Jahrhunderts. Auf 
Grund der Ergebnisse der Berufs- und Gewerbezahlung von 1895 
und nach anderen Quellen bearbeitet im Kaiserlichen Statistischen 
Amt. Berlin, Puttkammer u. Miihlbrecht, 1900. VII, 209 S.— 
195, 212-13. 

Drechsler, H. "Die bauerlichen Zustande in einigen Teilen der Pro- 
vinz Hannover." — In: Bauerliche Zustande in Deutschland. Berichte, 
veroffentlicht vom Verein fur Sozialpolitik Bd. 3. Leipzig, Duncker 
u. Humblot, 1883, S. 59-112, 2 Tab. (Schriften des Vereins fur 
Sozialpolitik. XXIV).— 281, 373, 374. 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



523 



— "Die Verteilung des Grundbesitzes und der Viehhaltung im Bezirke 

des landwirtschaftlichen Kreisvereins Gottingen." — In: Landwirt- 
schaftliche Jahrbucher, Berlin, 1886, Bd. XV, S. 753-811.— 281, 373, 
374 

Diihring, E. Kursus der National- und Sozialdkonomie einschliefJlich 
der Hauptpunkte der Finanzpolitik. Berlin, T. Grieben, 1873. XII, 
563 S.— 82. 

E 

Engels, F. "Die Bauernfrage in Frankreich und Deutschland." — In: 
Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart, 1894-1895, Jg. XIII, Bd. I, N 10, S. 292- 
306.— 29, 30, 32, 36, 40, 41, 45, 51, 57, 60, 64, 65, 70, 106, 265. 

— Vorbemerkung ." [zu: Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg]. 1. Juli 1874. — In: 

F. Engels. Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg. Leipzig, 1875, S. 3-19.— 
41, 265. 

— Zur Wohnungsfrage. S.-Abdr. aus dem "Volksstaat" von 1872. 
Zweite, durchges. Aufl. Hottingen-Ziirich, 1887. 72 S. (Sozial- 
demokratische Bibliothek. XIII). — 34. 

Ergebnisse der Erhebungen uber die Lage der bauerlichen Landwirtschaft 
in den Gemeinden Willsbach OA Weinsberg, Oschelbronn OA Herren- 
berg, Oberkollwangen OA Calw, Wiesenbach OA Gerabronn, Inger- 
kingen OA Biberach und Christazhofen OA Wangen des Konigreichs 
Wiirtemberg 1884-1885. Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1886. 392 S.— 
41, 42, 49. 

Ergebnisse der Erhebungen uber die Lage der Landwirtschaft im Grofiher- 
zogtum Baden 1883. [Karlsruhe, Braun, 1883]. 185 S.; 8 Taf. (In: 
Erhebungen uber die Lage der Landwirtschaft im GrofJherzogtum 
Baden 1883, veranstaltet durch das GrofSherzogliche Ministerium 
des Innern. Bd. 4).— 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 49, 70, 
180-85. 

Erhebungen uber die Lage der Landwirtschaft im Grofiherzogtum Baden 
1883, veranstaltet durch das GrofSherzogliche Ministerium des Innern. 
Bd. 1-3. Karlsruhe, Braun, 1883. 3 Bd.— 29, 30 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 
39, 41, 42, 49, 70, 181-82. 

"Ermittelungen uber die allgemeine Lage der Landwirtschaft in 
PreuBen." Aufgenommen im Jahre 1888-89. I und II T. — In: Land- 
wirtschaftliche Jahrbucher, Berlin, 1890-1891, Bd. XVIII, Ergan- 
zungsband 3; Bd. XIX, Erganzungsband 4. — 70. 



F 

Fischer, G. Die soziale Bedeutung der Maschinen in der Landwirtschaft. 
Leipzig, Duncker u. Humblot, 1902. 1, 66 S. (Staats- und sozial- 
wissenschaftliche Forschungen. Bd. XX, Hft. 5).— 238, 248-55, 
270, 271, 280. 

Fritsch, J. Les Engrais. T. I-II. Paris, L. Laveur, S. a. 2 t. (L'agri- 
culture au XXe siecle.)— 348-49. 

Frost, G. "Feld- und Waldbahnen."— In: Technische Rundschau, Ber- 
lin, 1899, N 43.— 109. 



524 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



G 

Garola, C.-V. Engrais. Paris. 1903.— 348-49. 

Grabmayr, K. Die Agrarreform im Tiroler Landtag. Meran, F. W. Ell- 

menreich, 1896. 157 S.— 169. 
— Schuldnot und Agrarreform. Eine agrarpolitische Skizze mit beson- 

derer Beriicksichtigung Tirols. Meran, F. W. Ellmenreich, 1894. 

XII, 211 S. —168-69. 
Grandeau. Annalles de la Station agronomique de UEst. — 263, 264. 
Grohmann, H. "Die Niederlandische Landwirtschaft im Jahre 1890." — 

In: Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher, Berlin, 1893, Bd. XXII, S. 741- 

799.-226-27. 

Grunenberg, A. Die Landarbeiter in den Provinzen Schleswig-Holstein 
und Hannover ostlich der Weser, sowie in dem Gebiete des Fiirstentums 
Liibeck und der freien Stddte Liibeck, Hamburg und Bremen. Tubingen, 
H. Laupp, 1899. X, 212 S. (Die Landarbeiter in den evangelischen 
Gebieten Norddeutschlands. In Einzeldarstellungen nach den 
Erhebungen des Evangelisch-Sozialen Kongresses hrsg. von M. We- 
ber. 2. Hit.).— 253. 



H 

Haggard, R. Rural England. Being an account of agricultural and 
social researches carried out in the year 1901-1902. Vol. I-II. Lon- 
don, N. York and Bombay, Longmans, Green and Co., 1902. 2 vol.— 
70. 

Hainisch, M. Die Zukunft der Deutsch-Osterreicher. Eine statistisch- 
volkswirtschaftliche Studie, Wien, F. Deuticke, 1892. VIII, 
165 S.— 168. 

Hand and Machine Labor. Vol. I-II. Washington, Government print- 
ing office, 1899. 1604 pp. 2 vol. (Thirteenth Annual Report of the 
Commissioner of Labor. 1898.)— 270, 282-86. 

Handwdrterbuch der Staatswissenschaften. 3. ganzlich umgearb. Aufl. 
Bd. I. Jena, G. Fischer, 1909, S. 237-255.-362-63. 

Hasbach, W. Die englischen Landarbeiter in den letzten hundert Jahren 
und die Einhegungen. Leipzig, Duncker u. Humblot, 1894. XII, 
410 S. (Schriften des Vereins fur Sozialpolitik. LIX).— 76, 
77. 

Hecht, M. Die Badische Landwirtschaft am Anfang des XX. Jahrhun- 

derts. Mit 6 Taf. u. 12 Karten. Karlsruhe, Braun, 1903. X, 262 S. 

(Volkswirtschaftliche Abhandlungen der Badischen Hochschulen. 

VII. Bd. I. Erganzungsband).— 399. 
— Drei Dorfer der badischen Hard. Eine wirtschaftliche und soziale 

Studie. Leipzig, Wilhelm, 1895. 94 S.— 29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 39, 41, 

42, 49, 70, 101, 104, 111, 115, 116-25, 276, 279. 
Herkner, H. Die Arbeiterfrage. 2. vollig umgearb. und stark verm. 

Aufl. Berlin, 1897. XVI, 608 S.— 251. 
Hertz, F. O. Die agrarischen Fragen im Verhaltnis zum Sozialismus. 

Mit einer Vorrede von Ed. Bernstein. Wien, 1899. VII, 141 S.— 

29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 48, 76, 84, 87, 96-104, 266. 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



525 



Holmes, G. K. "Progress of agriculture in the United States." — In: 
Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture. 1899. 
Washington, 1900, pp. 307-334.— 254. 

Holtz, T. Die agrarischen Aufgaben der Gegenwart. 2. unveranderte 
Aufl. Jena, G. Fischer, 1895. VIII, 190 S.— 69, 70. 

— Handbuch der landwirtschaftlichen Betriebslehre. 2. umgearb. Aufl. 
Berlin, Verl. fur Landwirtschaft, Gartenbau und Forstwesen, 1896. 
VIII, 638 S.— 69, 70. 

— Die landliche Arbeiterklasse und der preufiische Staat. Jena, G. Fi- 
scher, 1893. VI, 300 S.— 251. 

— Vorlesungen iiber Agrarwesen und Agrarpolitik. Jena, G. Fischer, 
1899. VI, 294 S.— 80. 

Hubach, C. "Ein Beitrag zur Statistik der Verschuldung des landlichen 
Grundbesitzes in Nieder-Hessen." — In: Landwirtschaftliche Jahr- 
bucher, Berlin, 1894, Bd. XXIII, S. 1035-1043. —70. 

Huschke, L. Landwirtschaftliche Reinertrags-Berechnungen bei Klein-, 
Mittel- und Groflbetrieb dargelegt an typischen Beispielen Mittel- 
thiiringens. Jena, G. Fischer, 1902. VI, 184 S. (Abhandlungen des 
staatswissenschaftlichen Seminars zu Jena. Bd. 1. Hft. 4.)— 70, 
287-93. 

J 

Jahrbuch der deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, Berlin, 1899, 
Bd. 14, S. 141-145.— 109. 

Jahrbuch fur Gesetzgebung , Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deut- 
schen Reich, Leipzig, 1899, 23. Jg., Hft. 4, S. 283-346.-248. 

Jahrbiicher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik, Jena, 1894, Folge 3, 
Bd. 8, S. 321-374.-75. 

Jordi, E. Der Elektromotor in der Landwirtschaft, Bern, 1910. — 406-07. 



K 

Kautsky, K. Die Agrarfrage. Eine Ubersicht iiber die Tendenzen der 
modernen Landwirtschaft und die Agrarpolitik der Sozialdemo- 
kratie. Stuttgart, Dietz, 1899. VIII, 451 S. — 31, 34, 37, 40 44, 
45, 46, 48, 101, 102, 112-13, 115, 128, 248, 266, 276. 

— "Die Blektrizitat in der Landwirtschaft." — In: Die Neue Zeit, 
Stuttgart, 1900-1901, Jg. XIX, Bd. I, N 18, S. 565-572. — 30, 31, 34, 
254. 

— Das Erfurter Programm in seinem grundsdtzlichen Teil. Stuttgart, 

Dietz, 1892. VIII, 262 S.— 65. 
— Die soziale Revolution. I. Sozialreform und soziale Revolution. 

Berlin, Exp. der Buchh. "Vorwarts", 1902. 64 S.— 42, 70. 
— Die soziale Revolution. II. Am Tage nach der sozialen Revolution. 

Berlin, Exp. der Buchh. "Vorwarts", 1902. 48 S.— 42, 70. 

— "Tolstoi und Brentano."— In: Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart, 1900-1901, 
Jg. XIX, Bd. II, N 27, S. 20-28.— 32. 

— "Sozialismus und Landwirtschaft." — In: Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart, 
1902-1903, Jg. 21, Bd. I, N 22, S. 677-688; N 23, S. 731-735; N 24, 
S. 745-758; N 25, S. 781-797; N 26, S. 804-819.— 64, 65. 



526 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



— "Zwei Kritiker meiner Agrarfrage ." — In: Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart, 
1899-1900, Jg. XVIII, Bd. I, N 10, S. 292-300- N 11, S. 338-346; 
N 12, S. 363-368; N 14, S. 428-463; N 15, S. 470-477.— 34. 

Keup, E. und Miihrer, R. Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung von 
Gro/3- und Kleinbetrieb in der Landwirtschaft. Mit einer Einleitung 
von Dr. 0. Auhagen. Berlin. 1913. XXXI, 414 S.— 398. 

Klawki, K. "Uber Konkurrenzfahigkeit des landwirtschaftlichen 
Kleinbetriebes." — In: Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher, Berlin, 1899, 
Bd. XXVIII, S. 363-484.-29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 41, 42, 49, 69, 
70, 138-59, 251. 

L 

"Die Landfrage auf den Kongressen der Internationale." Eine Remi- 

niszenz.— In: Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart, 1894-1895, Jg. XIII, Bd. I, 

N 12, S. 357-364.-41. 
Die Landwirtschaft in Bayern. Nach der Betriebszahlung vom 12. 

Juni 1907. Hft. 81 der Beitrage zur Statistik des Konigreichs Bayern. 

Hrsg. vom K. Statistischen Landesamt. Miinchen, Lindauer, 1910. 

[3], 215, 225 S.; 3 Kart.— 400. 
Die landwirtschaftliche Enquete im GrofJherzogtum Hessen. Veranstaltet 

vom GroBherzogtums Ministerium des Innern und der Justiz in 

den Jahren 1884, 1885 und 1886. Bd. ML— 70. 
Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher, Berlin, 1886, Bd. XV, S. 753-811.— 

281, 373, 374. 
—1887, Bd. XVI, S. 481-530.— 108. 

—1890, Bd. XVIII, Erganzungsband 3. XIX, 648 S.— 70. 
—1891, Bd. XIX, Erganzungsband 4. 579 S.— 70. 
—1893, Bd. XXII, S. 741-799.— 226-27. 
—1894, Bd. XXIII, S. 1035-1043.-70. 

—1896, Bd. XXV, S. 1-113. — 31, 34, 39, 41, 42, 49. 69, 70, 100, 101, 
105, 106, 126-37, 231-39, 251, 267, 268, 271, 275, 281, 397. 

—1899, Bd. XXVIII, S. 253-310, 363-484.-29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 39, 
41, 42, 49, 69, 70, 138-59, 160-68, 251. 

—1905, Bd. XXXIV, S. 925-972.-397, 399. 

Landwirtschaftliche Statistik der Lander der ungarischen Krone. Bd. IV- 
V. Budapest, 1900. 2 Bd.— 373, 374. 

Lange, F. A. J. St. Mill's Ansichten iiber die soziale Frage und die 
angebliche Umwalzung der Sozialwissenschaft durch Carey. Duisburg, 
Falk und Lange, 1866. VIII, 256 S.— 82. 

Laur, E. Grundlagen und Methoden der Bewertung, Buchhaltung und 
Kalkulation in der Landwirtschaft. Berlin, 1911. — 399. 

— Statistische Notizen iiber die Entwicklung der schweizerischen Land- 
wirtschaft in den letzten 25 Jahren. Brugg, 1907. — 402-05. 

Lecouteux, E. L 'agriculture a grands rendements. Paris, 1892. 363 p. 
(Bibliotheque agricole). — 70. 

— Cours d'economie rurale. T. 1-2. Paris, 1872-1879. 2 t.— 70. 
Losch, H. "Die Veranderungen im wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaft- 

lichen Aufbau der Bevolkerung Wiirtembergs nach den Ergebnisse 
der Berufs- und Betriebszahlung vom 12. Juni 1907."— In: Wiir- 
tembergische Jahrbiicher Statistik und Landeskunde , Stuttgart, 1911, 
Hft. 1, S. 94-190.— 399. 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



527 



M 

Mack, P. Der Aufschwung unseres Landwirtschaftsbetriebes durch 
Verbilligung der Produktionskosten. Eine Untersuchung iiber den 
Dienst, den Maschinentechnik und Elektrizitat der Landwirtschaft 
bieten. Konigsberg, 1900. 56 S.— 30, 31, 33, 109. 

Malthus, T. R. An Essay on the Principle of Population or a View 
of Its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness. London, Ward, 
Lock and Co., [1890]. XLII, 614 p.— 82. 

Martiny, B. Priifung der "Thistle" -Melkmasehine. Aus Veranlassung 
der deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft ausgefiihrt. Berlin, 
Unger, 1899. 117, 83 S. (Arbeiten der deutschen Landwirtschafts- 
Gesellschaft. Hft. 37). —109. 

Marx, K. Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Okonomie. Bd. I. 
Buch 1: Der ProduktionsprozeB des Kapitals. Hamburg, O. Meissner, 
1867. XII, 784 S.— 267, 268. 

— Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Okonomie. Bd. I. Buch I: 
Der ProduktionsprozeB des Kapitals. 3. verm. Aufl. Hamburg, 
O. Meissner, 1883. XXIII, 808 S.— 108. 

—Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Okonomie. Bd. Ill, T. 2. 
Buch III: Der GesammtprozeB der kapitalistischen Produktion. 
Kap. XXIX bis LII. Hrsg. von F. Engels. Hamburg. Meissner, 
1894. IV, 422 S.— 30, 34, 40, 45, 46, 47, 70, 73, 275, 278. 

Maurice, F. L 'agriculture et la question sociale. La France agricole 
et agraire. Paris, Savine, 1892. 380 p.— 29, 31, 35, 36, 99, 173-77. 

Mill, J. St. Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Appli- 
cations to Social Philosophy. 4 Ed. Vol 1. London, J. W. Parker 
and son, 1857, XVI, 606 pp.— 278. 

Mitteilungen der deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, Berlin, 1899 
Jg. 14, Stuck 17, 25. September, S. 201-274.— 108. 



N 

Die Neue Zeit, Stuttgart, 1894-1895, Jg. XIII, Bd. I, N 10 S. 292- 
306.— 29, 30, 32, 36, 40, 41, 45, 51, 57, 60, 64, 65, 70, 106, 265. 

—1894-1895, Jg. XIII, Bd. I, N 12. S. 357-364.— 41. 

—1894-1895, Jg. XIII, Bd. II, N 36, S. 293-303.— 240. 

—1899-1900, Jg. XVIII, Bd. 1, N 10, S. 292-300; N 11, S. 338-346; 
N 12, S. 363-368; N 14, S. 428-463; N 15, S. 470-477.— 34. 

—1900-1901, Jg. XIX, Bd. I, N 18, S. 565-572.— 30, 31, 34, 254. 

—1900-1901, Jg. XIX, Bd. II, N 45, S. 585-590; N 46, S. 622-631.— 
225 277 280 

—1900-1901, Jg. XIX, Bd. II, N 27, S. 20-28.— 32 

—1902-1903, Jg. 21, Bd. 1, N 22, S. 677-688; N 23, S. 731-735; N 24 
S. 745-758; N 25, S. 781-797; N 26, S. 804-819.— 64, 65. 

Neuere Erfahrungen auf dem Gebiete des landwirtschaftlichen Betriebs- 
wesens. Neunzehn Vortrage gehalten auf dem von der Deutschen 
Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft veranstalteten VII. Lehrgange fur 
Wanderlehrer zu Eisenach vom 31. Marz bis 6. April 1910, Berlin, 



528 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



1910. XI, 460 S. (Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesell- 
schaft. Heft 167).— 399. 
Nicolai — on — see Danielson. 

Nossig, A. Revision des Sozialismus, Bd. 2. Das System des Sozialis- 
mus. (Die moderne Agrarfrage). Berlin-Bern, 1902. VII, 587 S. — 
40, 48, 263-64. 

0 

Osterreichische Statistik hrsg. von der K. K. Statistischen Zentralkom- 
mission. Bd. LXXXIII. Hft. I. Ergebnisse der landwirtschaftlichen 
Betriebszahlung vom 3. Juni 1902 in den im Reichsrate vertretenen 
Konigreichen und Landern. I. Hft. Analitische Bearbeitung. Sum- 
marische Daten fiir das Reich, die Verwaltungsgebiete und Landern, 
nebst Anhang, enthaltend Ubersichten nach natiirlichen Gebieten. 
Bearb. von dem Bureau der K. K. Statistischen Zentralkommission. 
Wien, 1909. [4], XLV, 65 S. — 369, 383, 384-85, 393-95, 396. 

Osterreichisches statistisches Handbuch fiir die im Reichsrate vertretenen 
Konigreiche und Lander. 27. Jg. 1908. Hrsg. von der K. K. Sta- 
.. tistischen Zentralkommission. Wien, 1909. IV, 506 S.— 383, 386-87. 

Osterreichisches statistisches Handbuch fiir die im Reichsrate vertretenen 
Konigreiche und Lander. 28. Jg. 1909. Hrsg. von der K. K. Sta- 
tistischen Zentralkommission. Wien, 1910. IV, 510 S.— 383, 386, 
.. 388-92, 396. 

Osterreichisches statistisches Handbuch fiir die im Reichsrate vertretenen 
Konigreiche und Lander. 29. Jg. 1910. Hrsg. von der K. K. Statis- 
tischen Zentralkommission. Wien, 1911. IV, 484 S.; 3 Diagr. — 383. 



P 

P. S. "Die neuere russische Gesetzgebung iiber den Gemeindebesitz."— 
In: Archiv fiir soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik, Berlin, 1894, 
Bd. VII, S. 626-652.-97. 

Petersilie, A. "Schichtung und Aufbau der Landwirtschaft in PreuBen 
und seinen Provinzen, nach den Betriebszahlungen von 1882, 1895 
und 1907." — In: Zeitschrift des Koniglich Preu/Sischen Statistischen 
Landesamts, Berlin, 1913, 53. Jg., S. 67-108.— 399. 

PreuBische Jahrbiicher, Berlin, 1900, Bd. 99, S. 193-205.— 110. 

Pringsheim, O. "Landwirtschaftliche Manufaktur und elektrische 
Landwirtschaft." — In: Archiv fiir soziale Gesetzgebung und Statis- 
tik, Berlin, 1900, Bd. XV, S. 406-418. — 30, 31, 33, 107-10, 254. 

Protokoll iiber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokrati- 
schen Partei Deutschlands. Abgehalten zu Breslau vom 6. bis 12. 
Oktober 1895. Berlin, Exp. der Buchh. "Vorwarts", 1895. 223 S.— 
41, 69. 

Protokoll iiber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokrati- 
schen Partei Deutschlands. Abgehalten zu Hannover vom 9. bis 14. 
Oktober 1899. Berlin, Exp. der Buchh. "Vorwarts", 1899. 304 S.— 
65. 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



529 



Q 

Quante, H. "Grundkapital und Betriebskapital." — In: Landwirtschaft- 
liche Jahrbiicher, Berlin, 1905, Bd. XXXIV, S. 925-972.-397, 399. 



R 

La Revue Socialiste, Paris, 1899, T. XXIX. janvier-juin, p. 219-237.— 
260, 261-62. 

Ricardo, D. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. 
Third edition. London, Murray, 1821. XII, 538 pp.— 40, 47. 

Rocquigny , R. Les syndicats agricoles et leur oeuvre. Paris, A. Colin 
et Cie, 1900. VIII, 412 p.; 1 carte. (Bibliotheque du Musee Social).— 
57, 63, 69, 70, 262. 

Rouanet, G. "Revue economique. Du danger et de l'avenir des syn- 
dicats agricoles." — In: La Revue Socialiste, Paris, 1899, T. XXIX, 
janvier-juin, p. 219-237.— 260, 261-62. 

Riimker, K. "Benkendorf und seine Nebengiiter." Skizze eines land- 
wirtschaftlichen Musterbetriebes der Provinz Sachsen. — In: Land- 
wirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher, Berlin, 1887, Bd. XVI, S. 481-530.— 108. 



S 

Schmelzle, H. "Grundsatzliches zur Fleischteuerung." — In: Wochen- 
blatt des landwirtschaftlichen Vereins in Bayern, Miinchen, 1912, 
N 47 [und folgende].— 401. 

— "Die landliche Grundbesitzverteilung, ihr EinfluB auf die Leistungs- 
fahigkeit der Landwirtschaft und ihre Entwicklung." — In: Annalen 
des Deutschen Reichs fur Gesetzgebung , Verwaltung und Volkswirts- 
chaft, Miinchen-Berlin, 1913, N 6, S. 401-434.— 335, 397-401. 

Seignouret, M, E. Essais d'economie sociale et agricole. Beaugency, 
J. Laffray, 1897. VII, 300 p.— 186-88. 

Sering, M. Die Agrarfrage und der Sozialismus. [Review of the book:] 
Kautsky, K. Die Agrarfrage. Eine Ubersicht iiber die Tendenzen 
der modernen Landwirtschaft und die Agrarpolitik der Sozialdemo- 
kratie. Stuttgart, 1899, Dietz Nachf., VII u. 451 S.— In: Jahrbuch 
fur Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen 
Reich, Leipzig, 1899, 23. Jg., Hft. 4, S. 283-346.-248. 

— Die Bodenbesitzverteilung und die Sicherung des Kleingrundbesitzes. — 
In: Verhandlungen der am 20. und 21. Marz 1893 in Berlin abgehal- 
tenen Generalversammlung des Vereins fur Sozialpolitik iiber die 
landliche Arbeiterfrage und iiber die Bodenbesitzverteilung und 
die Sicherung des Kleingrundbesitzes. Leipzig, Duncker u. Hum- 
blot, 1893, S. 135-150. (Schriften des Vereins fur Sozialpolitik. 
Bd. LVIII).-398. 

— Die innere Kolonisation im ostlichen Deutschland. Leipzig, Duncker 
u. Humblot, 1893. IX, 330 S. (Schriften des Vereins fur Sozialpoli- 
tik. Bd. LVI).— 239, 266, 268. 



530 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



Seufferheld , A. Die Anwendung der Elektrizitat im landwirtschaftlichen 
Betriebe, aus eigener Erfahrung mitgeteilt. Stuttgart, Ulmer, 1899. 
42 S.— 109. 

Sinell. "Uber den augenblicklichen Umfang der Verwendung von 
Elektrizitat in der Landwirtschaft." — In: Jahrbuch der deutschen 
Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, Berlin, 1899, Bd. 14, S. 141-145, 
in section: Die Winterversammlung 1899 zu Berlin. — 109. 

Sismondi, S. Etudes sur Veconomie politique. T. I. Paris, C. Treuttel 
et Wiirtz, 1837. XI, 470 p. —265. 

Sociale Rundschau, Wien. — 169. 

Souchon, A. La propriete paysanne. Etude d'economie rurale. Paris 
Larose et Forcel, 1899. VIII, 257 p.— 29, 30, 35, 41, 49, 70, 81, 
99, 170-72, 220. 

Sozialistische Monatshefte, Berlin, 1889, N 2, S. 62-71. — 31, 34, 100, 
111-15, 265. 

Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Neue Folge, Bd. 112. Die Landwirt- 
schaft im Deutschen Reich. Nach der landwirtschaftlichen Betriebs- 
zahlung vom 14. Juni 1895. Bearbeitet im Kaiserlichen Statistischen 
Amt. Berlin, Puttkammer u. Miihlbrecht. 1898. VIII, 70, 500 S.— 
29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 70, 189-217, 224-25, 267, 299 
318-19, 332-38, 341, 358, 359, 360-61, 362, 363, 373, 374. 

Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Bd. 202. Berufs- und Betriebszahlung 
vom 12. Juni 1907. Berufsstatistik. Hrsg. vom Kaiserlichen Sta- 
tistischen Amte. Abteilung I. Einfiihrung. Die Reichsbevolkerung 
nach Haupt- und Nebenberuf. Berlin, Puttkammer u. Miihlbrecht 
1909. [5], 240,134 S.— 298, 342-45, 370-71. 

Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Bd. 211. Berufs- und Betriebszahlung 
vom 12. Juni 1907. Berufsstatistik. Abteilung X. Die berufliche und 
soziale Gliederung des deutschen Volkes. Bearbeitet im Kaiserlichen 
Statistischen Amte. Berlin, Puttkammer u. Miihlbrecht, 1913. [6], 
325, 270 S.— 298, 355. 

Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Bd. 212. Berufs- und Betriebszahlung 
vom 12. Juni 1907. Landwirtschaftliche Betriebsstatistik. Hrsg. 
vom Kaiserlichen Statistischen Amte. Teil 1 a, 1 b, 2 a. Berlin, 
[1909-1910]. 3 T.— 297-375. 

Teil 1 a, [1], 14, 366 S.— 190, 297, 298, 300-01, 367. 
Teil 1 b, S. 367-681.— 297, 298, 302-09, 324-27, 328-29, 347, 356, 366. 
Teil 2 a, [6], 380 S.— 189, 194-95, 196-97, 198, 203, 205, 211, 297, 
298, 299, 310-23, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 367, 368. 

Statistische Monatsschrift, Wien, 1901, Jg. 27, Nr. 1.— 169. 

Statistisches Jahrbuch fur das Deutsche Reich. Hrsg. vom Kaiserlichen 
Statistischen Amte. 31. Jg. 1910. Berlin, Puttkammer u. Miihl- 
brecht, 1910. XXXII 410, 67 S., 2 Diagr.— 298. 

Statistique agricole de la France. Resultats generaux de l'enquete 
decennale de 1892. Paris, 1897. 451, 365 S.— 29, 30, 31, 35, 17(), 
218-23, 224. 

Statistique de la Belgique. Agriculture. Recensement general de 1880. — 
224. 

Stumpfe, E. Der kleine Grundbesitz und die Getreidepreise. Leipzig, 
Duncker u. Humblot, 1897. 130 S. (Staats- und sozialwissenschaft- 
liche Beitrage. Bd. III. Hft. 2).— 42, 49, 240-47. 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



531 



— "Uber die Konkurrenzfahigkeit des kleinen und mittleren Grund- 
besitzes gegeniiber dem GroBgrundbesitze." — In: Landwirtschaft- 
liche Jahrbiicher, Berlin, 1896, Bd. XXV, S. 57-113.— 41, 70, 101, 
231-39, 251, 268, 269, 275, 397. 

T 

Technische Rundschau, Berlin, 1899, N 43.— 109. 

ThieVs Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbiicher — see Landwirtschaftliche Jahr- 
biicher. 

Thirteenth Census of the United States, taken in the year 1910. Vol. 

IV-V. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1913-1914. 2 V. 

(Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census). 
—Vol. IV. Population. 1910. Occupation Statistics. 1914. 615 pp.— 

482-86. 

—Vol. V. Agriculture. 1909-1910. General Report and Analysis. 
1913. 927 pp.— 442-81. 

—Vol. V. Abstract of the Census. 1914.— 451, 469, 485. 

Tourdonnet , de Etude sur le metayage en France. — 258. 

Turgot, A. R. J. Oeuvres. Nouv. ed. classee par ordre de matieres 
avec les notes de Dupont de Nemours augm. de lettres ined., des 
questions sur le commerce, et d'observations et de notes nouv. par 
E. Daire et H. Dussard et precedee d'une notice sur la vie et les 
ouvrages de Turgot par E. Daire. T. I. Paris, Guillaumin, 1894. 
CXVIII, 675 p. -278. 

Turot, P. L'enquete agricole de 1866-1870. Resumee. Paris, 1877. 
XV, 504 p.— 257. 

U 

Uitkomsten van het Onderzoek naar den Toestand van den Landbouw in 
Nederland, ingesteld door de Landbouw commissie, benoemd bij Konin- 
klik besluit vom 18. Sept. 1886. [4 banden]. Gravenhage, 1890.— 
226-30. 

Untersuchung der wirtschaftlichen Verhdltnisse in 24 Gemeinden des 
Konigreichs Bayern. Miinchen, R. Oldenbourg, 1895. XXXII, 
575 S.— 41, 42, 49, 70, 88, 246. 

Untersuchungen betreffend die Rentabilitdt der schweizerischen Land- 
wirtschaft im Erntejahr 1909/10. Bericht des schweizerischen Bauern- 
sekretariats an das schweizerische Landwirtschafts-Departement. 
Bern, 1911.— 398, 401. 

V 

Vandervelde, E. Le collectivisme et revolution industrielle. Paris 
Societe nouvelle de librairie et d'edition, 1900. 285 p. (Biblio- 
theque socialiste. N 2-4).— 29 32, 36. 

Verhandlungen der am 20. und 21. Mdrz 1893 in Berlin abgehaltenen 
Generalversammlung des Vereins fiir Sozialpolitik iiber die landliche 



532 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



Arbeiterfrage und iiber die Bodenbesitzverteilung und die Sicherung 
des Kleingrundbesitzes . Leipzig, Duncker u. Humblot, 1893 
S. 135-150. (Schriften des Vereins fur Sozialpolitik. Bd, 
LVIII).— 398. 

Vogeley-Alsfeld, K. "Landwirtschaftliche Betriebsverhaltnisse Rhein- 
hessens mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung des Weinbauers." — In: 
Arbeiten der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft, Hft. 133. 
Betriebsverhaltnisse der deutschen Landwirtschaft. Stuck IV. 
Verfasser: G. Stenkhoff, R. Franz, K. Vogeley. Berlin, P. Parey, 
1907, S. 1-117.— 397. 



W 

Wagner, A. Grundlegung der politischen Okonomie. 3. Aufl. Teil I. 
Grundlagen der Volkswirtschaft. Halbband 1-2. Leipzig, C. F. Win- 
ter, 1892-1893. 2 Biich. (Lehr- und Handbuch der politischen Oko- 
nomie.)— 101. 

Weber, M. — see Grunenberg, A. 

Werner und Albert. Der Betrieb der deutschen Landwirtschaft am Schlu/3 
des XIX. Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1900. 96 S. (Arbeiten der Deutschen 
Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft. Hft. 51).— 398. 

West E. The Application of Capital to Land 1815. London, Underwood, 
1815. 54 pp. (A Reprint of Economic Tracts).— 47. 

Wiirtembergische Jahrbiicher filr Statistik und Landeskunde, Stuttgart, 

1911, Hft. 1, S. 94-190.— 399. 

Wochenblatt des Landwirtschaftlichen Vereins in Bayern, Miinchen, 

1912, N 47 [und folgende].— 401. 
Wolff. Les Engrais. Paris, 1887.— 348-49. 



Y 

Yearbook of the United States. Department of Agriculture. 1899. 
Washington, 1900, pp. 307-334.— 254. 



Z 

Zahn, F. "Deutschlands wirtschaftliche Entwicklung unter besonderer 
Beriicksichtigung der Volkszahlung 1905 sowie der Berufs- und 
Betriebszahlung 1907". — In: Annalen des Deutschen Reichs filr 
Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft, Miinchen-Berlin, 
1910, N 6, S. 401-441; N 7, S. 481-518; N 8, S. 561-598; 1911, N 3-4, 
S. 161-248.— 324-25, 326-27, 340, 341, 353, 354, 355. 

Zeitschrift des Koniglich PreufSischen Statistischen Landesamts, Berlin, 
1913, 53. Jg., S. 67-108.— 399. 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



533 



E 

EyjizaKoe, C. H. K eonpocy o KanumajiucmuHecKou 3eojimipuu 3eMJiede- 
jiuh. — Hanano, Cn6., 1899, Na 1—2, CTp. 1—21; Na 3, CTp. 25—36, 
[b orfl. HayKH h ikmihthkh]. — 33, 35, 36, 47. 

— Kanumajiu3M u 3eMJiedejiue. T. 1 — 2, Cn6., B. A. TnaxHOB, 1900. 
2 t.— 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 47, 48, 70, 73-86, 
87, 88-89, 98, 100, 101, 105, 157, 170, 174, 196, 205, 206, 207, 
216, 222, 246, 259, 272. 

B 

B. B. — cm. BopoHy.06, B. B. 

BecniHUK pyccuou peeojiiouuu, }KeHeBa, 1901, Na 1, mojib, CTp. 1 — 15. — 
54, 59. 

— 1902, Na 2, ct P . 39—87. —57, 60. 

Buxjinee, II. A. KpecmbsmcKoe xoesiucmeo — cm. C6ophhk ct&thcthhb- 
ckhx CBefleHHH no TBepcKOH ry6epHHH. 

— OuepKu u3 pyccuou cejibCK0X03HucmeeHH0u deucmeumejibHocmu. Cn6. 
«Xo3hhh», 1901. IV, 173 CTp., (Khumcku xo3auna, Na 21). — 50. 

[Boponuoe , B. B.] «HaMe KpecTbjmcicoe xo3hhctbo h arpoHOMHa.» 
— OmeuecmeeHHue 3anucKu, Cn6., 1882, Na 8, CTp. 143 — 169; Na 9, 
CTp. 1 — 15, b oiyj.: CoBpeMeimoe o6o3peHHe. Hoflnncb: B. B. — 
41, 57, 62, 66. 

— IIpozpeccueHbie menemix e KpecmbsmcKOM xo3Hucmee. Cn6., H. H. Cko- 
poxoflOB, 1892. VI, 261 CTp. Hocjie 3arn. sbt. ; B. B. — 275. 



r 

[red u JIacfiapz]. Heto xomam couuaji-deMOKpambi? Ilep. c (j)paHii,. 

C npHM. R IIjiexaHOBa. }KeHeBa, ran. rpynnbi «OcBo6osKfleHHe 

Tpy^a», 1888. 39 CTp. (Qu'est-ce que la democratie socialiste? E-Ka 

coBpeMeHHoro conHajin3Ma. Bbin. 7.) — 66. 
repmu, 0. O. Azpapnue eonpocu. C npeflHCJi. 9. EeHiiiTeima. Ilep. 

A. HjibHHCKoro. Cn6., «3HaHHe», 1900. 323 CTp.— 96, 102. 
riiMMep , H. «H3 htotob noc-ne^Hero iieH3a C.-A. CoeflHHeHHbix 

DJ T aTOB». — 3aeemu, Cn6., 1913, Na 6, CTp. 39— 62.— 408, 410, 

471-72. 

A 

[ffanuejibcOH , H. <Z>.] Onepuu nauiezo nope<f>opMeHHOZo o6m,ecmeeHHOZo 
xo3Jtucmea. Cn6., A. BeHKe, 1893. XVI, 353 CTp.; XVI ji. Ta6ji. 
Ilepefl 3arji. sbt. '. HnKOJiaft — oh. — 31, 34, 42, 65. 



/IV 



Mu3Hb, Cn6., 1901, Na 3, ct P . 162—186; Na 4, CTp. 63— 100.— 30, 32. 



534 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



3 

3aeemu, Cn6., 1903, Ne 6, CTp. 39— 62.— 408, 410, 471-72. 
3apn, Stuttgart, 1901, Ne 1, anpejib, CTp. V. — 54. 
—1901, Ne 2—3, 1 AeKa6ps, CTp. 259— 302.— 40, 47, 48. 



H 

Hcjtpa, [MioHxeH], 1901, Ne 3, anpejib, CTp. 1—2.— 29, 30, 32, 37. 

K 

«K HHTaTGjiHM» . — 3apa, Stuttgart, 1901, Ne 1, anpejib, CTp. V. — 54. 
Kadjiyuoe, H, 06 ycjioeunx paseumiui KpecnibancKozo xo3Hucmea e Poc- 

cuu. (OiepKH no 3KOhomhh cenbCKoro xo3ancTBa). M., «KHH5KHoe 

«ejio», 1899. VIII, 309 CTp.— 34, 65. 
Kapuiuee , H. KpecmbuncKue enenadejibnue apendu. ,H^epnT, r. JlaK- 

MaH, 1892. XIX, 402 CTp., XVI CTp. npnjioac., 15 KapT, 5 flnarp. — 65. 
«Ko BceMy pyccKOMy KpecTbjmcTBy or KpecTbHHCKoro C0K)3a napTHH 

cor(HajiHCTOB-peBOJiion,HOHepoB». B. m., thii. napTHH coiinajiHCTOB- 

peBOJiiorj,HOHepoB, 1902. 32 CTp. — 56, 58, 62, 63. 
«KpecTbjmcKoe flBHacemie*. — PeeojimifuoHHan Poccuh, [}KeHeBa], 

1902, Ne 8, 25 hiohh, CTp. 1—5.— 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60. 

JI 

Jlenun, H. — cm. Jlenun, B. H. 

[Jlenun, B. H.] Azpapnuu eonpoc. M. 1. Cn6., 1908, 264 CTp. Ilepefl 

3arji. aBT.: Bji. Hjibhh. — 346. 
[Jlenun, B. H.] «ArpapHtiii Bonpoc h «kphthke MapKca»». — B kh.: 

[JleHHH, B. H.] Azpapnuu eonpoc. H. 1. Cn6., 1908, CTp. 164 — 263. 

Ilepe^ 3arji. aBT.: Bji. Hjibhh. — 346. 

— «ArpapHbift Bonpoc h «kphthkh MapKca»». [Tji. V — IX. — 06pa- 
3oeanue, Cn6., 1906, Ne 2, CTp. 175 — 226. IIoflnHCb: H. [JleHHH. — 
42, 44, 45, 49. 

— «Tr. «KpHTHKH» b arpapHOM Bonpoce». — 3apa, Stuttgart, 1901, 
Ne 2—3, fleica6pb, CTp. 259—302. no^nHCb: H. JleHHH.— 40, 47, 48. 

— «Pa6o x iaa napras h KpecTbHHCTBO». — Hcupa, [MioHxeH], 1901, 
Ne 3, anpejib, CTp. 1—2.— 29, 30, 32, 37. 

— Pa36umue Kanumcuiu3Ma e Poccuu. Ilponecc o6pa30BaHHH BHyTpeH 
Hero pbiHKa fljia KpynHOii npoMbirujieHHOCTH. Cn6., M. H. Boaobo- 
30Ba, 1899. IX, IV, 480 CTp.; 2 n. ^narp.; VIII CTp. Ta6ji. IlepeA 
3arn. aBT.: Bjia^HMnp Hjibhh. — 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 55, 64, 65, 
70, 109. 

M 

Manyujioe , A. Apenda 3eMJiu e Hpjianduu. M., JI. <E>. IlaHTejieeB, 
1895. [1], 319 ct P . —84. 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



535 



MapKc, K. u 3mejibc, <t>. Mcmutfiecm KoMMSnucmuHecKou napmuu. 

fleKa6pb 1847 r.— aBapb 1848 r.— 41, 265. 
— Manucfiecm KoMMyuucmunecKOu napmuu. Ilep. c HeM. n3,o;. 1872 r. 

C npeflHCJi. aBTopoB. JKeHeBa. BojibHaa PyccKaa Tan., 1882. 50 CTp. 

(PyccKaa coHHajibHO-peBOJuoiraoHHaa 6-Ka. Kh. TpeTba). — 30, 34, 

51, 106. 

— «IIepflHCJiOBHe aBTopoB k pyccKOMy H3flaHHio [MaHH(|>ecTa KoMMy- 
hhcthmgckoh napTHH] 21 HHBapH 1882 r.» — B kh.: MapKC, K. 
h 3Hrejibc c. Manucfiecm KoMMyHucmunecKou napmuu. Ilep. c HeM. 
H3fl. 1872 r. JKeHeBa. BojibHaa PyccKaa ran., 1882, CTp. VI — VIII. 
(PyccKaa coiiHajibHO-peBOJiiOHHOHHaa 6-Ka. Kh. TpeTba). — 30, 34, 
51, 106. 

— «IlHpKyjiap npoTHB Kpnre. 11 Maa 1846 r.» — 41. 

MapKC, K. Kanumaji. KpHTHKa nojiHTHnecKoft bkohomhh, t. Ill, 

m. 1—2. 1894 r.— 40, 244, 412. 
Mapmunoe, A. C. Pa6onue u peeojiiouusi. H3fl. CoM3a pyccKHx coiniaji- 

fleMOKpaTOB. }KeHeBa, ran. CoK3a, 1902. 47 CTp. (PC^IIP). — 56, 61. 
Macjioe, II. K. azpapnoMy eonpocy . (Kpumuua KpumuKoe). — jKu3h\>, 

Ch6., 1901, N° 3, ct P . 162—186; JV» 4, ct P . 63— 100.— 30, 32. 
— ycjioeuH pa36umuH cejibcuozo xo3Hucmea e Poccuu. OnbiT aHajiH3a 

cejibCK0X03aficTBeHHbix othoiubhhh. H. 1 — 2. Cn6., M. H. BoflOBO- 

30Ba, 1903. VIII, 493 CTp.— 40, 42, 47, 48, 50, 51, 56, 62. 
— «Mhpoboh pocT h KpH3HC cou,HajiH3Ma.» — BecnwuK PScckou Peeo- 

jiiouuu, }KeHeBa, 1902, N° 2, CTp. 39 — 87, b or^. 1. 57, 60. 
— «MocKBa, 4 (J'eBpajia». [IlepeflOBaa]. — Pyccuue eedoMOcmu, M., 

1903, JV° 35, 4 ({jeBpajia, CTp. 1.— 64 , 66. 

H 

Ha cjiaenoM nocmy {I860 — 1900). JlnTepaTypHbift c6ophhk, nocBaineH- 
Hbifi H. K. MnxaiijiOBCKOMy, H. II. [Cn6.], H. H. Kjio6yKOB, 
[1900], ct P . 1.— 64. 

Hapodnan Bojih, Cn6., 1879, N° 1, 1 OKTaSpa, CTp. 1. — 64. 

Hanajio, Cn6., 1898, No 1—2, CTp. 1—21; JVs 3, CTp. 25—36.-34, 
36, 47. 

«Hauia nporpaMMa.» — BecmnuK PyccKou Peeojiiouuu, JKeHeBa, 1901, 

N° 1, HKJib, CTp. 1 — 15. — 54, 59. 
HuKOJiau — oh — cm. ffanuejibcon, H. 0. 

O 

Oepaaoeanue, Cn6., 1906, JYa 2, ct P . 175— 226.— 42, 44, 45, 49. 

«Ot KpecTbaHCKoro C0H)3a napran couHajiHCTOB-peBOJiiOHHOHepoB 

KO BCeM pa60THHKaM peBOJIIOHHOHHOrO COH,HaJIH3Ma b Pocchh.» 

— PeeojuouuoHHan Poccuh, [JKeHeBa], 1902, JVa 8, 25 Hicma, 
ct P . 5— 14.— 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63. 
«Ot pe^aKLi,HH.» — Hapodnan Bojih, Cn6., 1879, Ne 1, 1 OKTa6pa, 
CTp. 1. — 64. 

OmeuecmeeHHue 3anucuu, Cn6., 1882, N° 8, CTp. 143 — 169, N° 9, 
ct P . 1—35.— 41, 57, 62. 



536 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



n 

Ilapeyc. Mupoeou puhok u cejibCK0X03HucmeeHHuu upu3uc. (Der Welt- 
markt und die Agrarkrisis.) Bkohomhmgckhb oiepKH. Ilep. c HeM. 
JI. H. Cn6., O. H. IIonoBa, 1898. 143 CTp. (06pa30BaTejibHaa 6h6- 
jiHOTeKa. Cepna 2-aa (1898). Ne 2).— 40, 44, 46, 48. 

II7exaHoe. R B. «BcepoccHftcKoe pa3opeHne.» — Co~uaji-/JeMOKpam, 
JKeHeBa, 1892, kh. 4, CTp. 65 — 101, b or^.: CoBpeMeHHoe o6o3pe- 
mie.— 64, 66, 67. 

— O 3adanax coy,uajiucmoe e 6opb6e c zojiodoM e Poccuu. (IlHCbMO 
k MonoflbiM TOBapnmaM). }KeHeBa, the. «Cou,Haji-3eMOKpaTa», 
1892 r. 89 CTp. (B-Ka coBpeMeHHoro conHajiH3Ma. Bbin. 10). — 64, 
66, 67. 

«IIporpaMMHbie Bonpocbi.» — PeeoAtoi^uoHnaji Poccuu, [JKeHeBa], 
1902, Ne 11, ceHTa6pb, CTp. 6—9; Ne 12, 0Kra6pb, CTp. 5—7; Ne 13, 
HOH6pb, CTp. 4—6.-53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62. 

«IIporpaMMHbie Bonpocbi.» — PeeojiK>y,uoHHaH Poccuu, [HCeHeBa], 
1902, No 14, aeKaa6pb, CTp. 5 — 8; 1903, Ne 15, HHBapb, CTp. 5 — 8. — 
54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63. 

«IIpoeKT nporpaMMM pyccKHx cou,Haji-fleMOKpaTOB.» — B kh.: Tefl 
h JIa(j)apr. Hezo xomsim coy,uaji-deMOKpam,bi? Ilep. c (|)paHii,. C npHM. 
r. IIjiexaH OBa. ^CeHeBa, thii. rpynnbi «OcBo6o5K/],eHHe Tpy^i,a», 
1888, CTp. 34 — 39. (Qu'est-ce que la democratic socialiste? B-Ka 
coBpeMeHHoro conHajiH3Ma. Bbin. 7.) — 66. 

P 

PeeoAK)y,uoHHaH Poccuh, [JKeiieBa], 1902, M 8, 25 hiohh, CTp. 1 — 14. — 

53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60. 

— 1902, No 11, ceHTaSpb, CTp. 6 — 9; Ne 12, oKTaSpb, CTp. 5 — 7; 

N 13, HoaSpb, CTp. 4—6.-53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62. 
— 1902, Ne 14, fleKaa6pb, CTp. 5 — 8; 1903, Ne 15, smBapb, CTp. 5 — 8. — 

54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63. 

PyduH, A. K. KpecmbHHCKOMy eonpocy. 063op TeKymeii jiHTepaTypbi. 
Ot#. otthck h3 Ne 3 BecrriHUKa PyccKou peeojnoy,uu . B. m. thii. nap- 

THH COHHaJIHCTOB-peBOJIIOHHOHepOB, 1903, 29 CTp. (IlapTHH COII,HaJIH- 

CTOB-peBOJnou,HOHepoB). — 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 66. 
PyccKue BedoMOcmu, M., 1903, Ne 35, 4 (|)eBpana, CTp. 1. — 64, 66. 
PycccKoe Bozamcmeo, Cn6., 1900, Ne 4, CTp. 127 — 157; Ne 5, CTp. 29 — 

49; Ne 6, ct P . 203—232; Ne 7, ct P . 153—169; Ne 8, ct P . 201—239; 

Ne 10, ct P . 212— 258.— 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 48, 99, 105. 
—1900, Ne 11, ct P . 232—248.-34. 

C 

C6ouhk cmamucmuHecKux ceedenuu no Teepcuou zy6epnuu. T. XIII. 
Bbin. 2 KpecTbHHCKoe xo3hhctbo. Coct. II. A. BnxjiHeB. H3S- 
TBepcKoro ry6. aeMCTBa. TBepb, ran. TBepcKoro ry6. 3Gmctb3, 
1897. X, 313 ct P .— 65. 



INDEX OF SOURCES 



537 



CKeopi/,06, A. BjiuHHue napoeozo mpancnopma na cejibcuoe xo3siucmeo. 

HccjieflOBaHHe b o6jiacTH bkohomhkh aeMjie^ejiHa. BapniaBa, M. 3eM- 

KeBHH, 1890. VIII, VI, 703 CTp.— 74. 
— OcHoeaHue nojiumunecKou 3kohomuu . Cn6., O. H. IIonoBa, 1898. 

IX, 432 CTp.— 74. 

Co-uaji-JI^eMOKpam, }KeHeBa, 1892, kh. 4, CTp. 65 — 101. — 64, 66, 67. 
Cmpyee, II. E. KpumunecKue 3aMemKu k eonpocy 06 3KOHOMuuecKOM 

pa36umuu Poccuu. Bhin. 1. Cn6., H. H. Ckopoxoaob, 1894. X, 

292 CTp.— 82. 

H 

*IepHoe. B. «K Bonpocy o KanHTajiHCTHnecKoft h arpapHofi 3bojik>d,hh.» — 
PyccKoe Eozamcmeo, Cn6., 1900, JVe 11, CTp. 232—248.-34. 

«KpeCTbHHHH H paSOHHH, KaK KaTerOpHH X03HHCTBGHHOrO CTpoa.» 

B kh.: Ha cjiaenoM nocmy {I860 — 1900). JlnTepaTypHbift cSophhk, 
nocBHineHHbiit H. K. MnxaftjiOBCKOMy, H. II. [Cn6.], H. H. Kjio- 
6yKOB, [1900], CTp. 157— 197.— 34, 36, 96. 
— Tunu KanumaJiucmuHecKOu u azpapnou 360jik>i/,uu. — PyccKoe Eozam- 
cmeo, Cn6., 1900, JVs 4, ct P . 127—157; JYa 5, ct P . 29—48; No 6, 
ct P . 203—232; M 7, ct P . 153—169; M 8, ct P . 201—239; JVs 10, 
ct P . 212— 258.— 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 48, 99, 105. 

in 

[IIIuuiKO, JI. 9.] Eecedu o 3eMJie. H3fl. 2-oe, nepecMOTpeimoe, napTHH 
conHajiHCTOB-peBOJiionHOHepoB h ArpapHO-coi(HajiHCTHHecKOH jinrn. 
B. m., 1902, 16 CTp. (HapoAHO-peBOJnoi(HOHHaa 6-Ka. M 4). — 63. 

3 

dnzejibzapdm , A. H. H3 depeenu. 11 nnceM. 1872 — 1882. Cn6., 

M. M. CTacKwieBHH, 1885. 563 CTp.— 56, 62. 
dnzejibc, <2>. KpecmbHHCKuu eonpoc eo Opanuuu u FepManuu. 15 — 22 ho- 

h6ph 1894 r.— 106. 
— «IIpeAHCJiOBHe k KpecmbHHCKOu eoune e repMcmuu* . 1 hiojih 1874 r. — 

41. 



539 



NAME INDEX 



A 

Albrecht— 398 

Auhagen, Hubert— 31, 34, 39, 42, 
49, 69, 70, 101, 104, 106, 
126, 128, 129, 136, 251, 267, 
268, 269, 271, 281 

B 

Backhaus, A. — 75, 108 

Bang, Gustav— 225, 277, 280 

Baudrillart, iP— 29, 30, 31, 35, 
41, 49, 70, 97, 100, 258, 259 

Benkendorf— 108 

Bensing, August Franz — 88, 89, 
108, 238, 249, 250, 270, 271 

Bernstein, Eduard— 97, 98, 266 

Blondel, G. — 31, 34 

Bockelmann — 108 

Bottger, iP— 29, 30, 32, 37, 41, 
51, 57, 60, 64, 65 

Brase-Linderode — 159, 160 

Braun, Heinrich — 107 

Brentano , Lujo — 32, 75 

Brinkmann, Fr. — 398 

Buchenberger, A. — 69, 70 

Bulgakov, S. N.—29, 30, 31, 32, 
33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 47, 48, 
70, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 84, 
87, 88, 89, 98, 100, 101, 105, 
157, 170, 174, 205, 206, 207, 
216, 222, 246, 259, 272, 281 

C 

Chernov, V. M. (Vladimirov) — 30, 
31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 47, 64, 65, 
96, 99, 105 



Chernyshevsky, N. G.— 42 
Chiapowo-Chfapowski, A. — 29 

32, 36, 41, 49, 178 
Cohn, V.— 264 
Conrad, Johannes — 266 
Coulet, Elie— 260, 261 

D 

Danielson, N. F. (N. — on, Ni- 
kolai— on)— 31, 34, 42, 50, 65, 
97, 105 

David, Eduard— 31, 34, 41, 44, 
48, 53, 60, 69, 70,100-08, 111, 
112, 114, 115, 191, 238, 240, 
265, 266, 268, 269, 272, 273, 
274, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281 

Deherain, P. -P. —264 

Delbruck, Max— 109, 110 

Deschanel, Paul — 262 

Drechsler, Gustav— 281, 373, 374 

Diihring, Eugen — 82 

Dunckelberg, V. P.— 264 



E 

Engelhardt, A. N.—56, 62 
Engels, Friedrich— 29, 30, 31, 32, 
33, 36, 40, 41, 45, 51, 57, 60, 
64, 65,66,70, 77, 98, 102, 104, 
106, 265 



F 

Fischer, Gustav— 238, 248, 270, 
280 

Foville, A.— 100 
Fritsch, J.— 348-49 



540 



NAME INDEX 



G 

Garola, C.-V. — 348-49 
Gofstetter, I. A.— 65 
Grabmayer, Karl— 168, 169 
Grandeau, L.— 263, 264 
Grohmann, V. G. — 226 
Guesde, Jules (Basile, Mathieu) — 
53, 60 

H 

Haggard, C. R. — 70 

Hainisch, M.— 168 

Hasbach, V.— 76, 77 

Hecht, Moritz— 29, 30, 31, 34, 38, 
39, 41, 42, 49, 70, 101, 104, 
106, 111, 114, 115, 116, 119, 
120, 122, 123, 276, 279, 399 

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich — 
276 

Hellriegel, Hermann — 26 

Herkner, H.—251 

Hertz, Friedrich Otto— 29, 31, 32, 
33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 47, 76, 
84, 87, 96, 97, 98, 102, 104, 
105, 106, 108, 109, 266 

Herzen, A. 7.-49 

Heuze— 348, 349 

Himmer, N. N. (Sukhanov, N.) — 
408, 410, 471, 472 

Hohenlohe— 244 

Holder, A.— 169 

Holms, G. if.— 254 

Holtz, T. A.— 69, 70, 79, 80, 251 

Hubach, C— 70 

Huschke, Leo— 70, 287, 289, 290, 
291 



K 



Kablukov, N. A.— 34, 65 
Karyshev , N. A. — 65 
Kautsky, Karl — 30, 31, 32, 34, 

37, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 53, 
60, 64, 65, 70, 83, 96, 97, 98 
99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 
105, 112, 113, 115, 128, 248, 
254, 266, 270, 276 

Keup, E.— 398 

Klawki, Karl— 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 

38, 39, 41, 42, 49, 69, 70, 
138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 
144, 145, 149, 153, 155, 156 
158, 159, 251 

Kraft— 248, 348-49 
Kiihn— 240 
Kutzleb, V.— 101 



L 

Lange, Friedrich- Albert — 82 
Laur, £.—399, 402 
Levitsky — 57 
Lecouteux — 70 
Lemstrom — 110 

Lenin— 64, 65, 300, 342, 346, 
364, 370, 373, 435, 441, 446, 
477, 479, 483 

Lepeshinsky, P. N. (2a3b)— 32, 
37 

Liebknecht, Wilhelm — 60 
Losch, H. — 399 



I 

Ilyin (Lenin)— 55, 64, 65, 66, 109 
J 

Jaures, Jean — 53, 60 
Jones, Richard — 47 
Jordi, Ernst— 406 



M 

Mack, P.— 30, 31, 38, 109 
Malthus, Thomas Robert — 82 
Manuilov, A. A.— 84 
Martiny, B.— 109 
Martynov, A. S.— 57, 61 
Marx, Karl— 30, 34, 40, 41, 45, 
47, 50, 56, 60, 65, 66, 70, 74, 
75, 76, 77, 81, 83 851 86. 89, 



NAME INDEX 



541 



101, 108, 244, 265, 267, 268, 

270 275 278 
Maslo'v, P. P.— 30, 32, 40, 42, 47, 

48, 50, 51, 56, 62 
Maurice, F — 29, 31, 35, 36, 99, 

173, 174, 176, 177 
Miaskouski, A.— 240 
Mill, John Stuart— 278 
Miihlbrecht— 297 
Muhrer, R.— 398 



N 

N. — on, Nikolai — on — see Dani- 

elson, N. F. 
Nevzorov — see Steklov, Y. M. 
Nossig, A.— 40, 47, 263, 264 



0 

Oppenheimer — 108 



P 

Parvus (Gelfand, A. L.)— 40, 44, 

46, 48 
Petersilie, A.— 399 
Plekhanov, G. V.— 64, 66, 67 
Pringsheim, Otto— 30, 31, 33, 

107, 254 
P. S. — 91 

Puttkamnzer — 297 



Q 

Quante, H.—397 



R 

Ricardo, David— 40, 47, 73, 75 
Rimpau — 249 



Rocquigny, R. 57, 63, 69, 70, 
262 

Rouanet, Gustave— 260, 261, 263 
Rudin, A. (Potapov, A. I.)— 52, 

53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 

62, 66 
Ryazanov, D. B. — 52 



S 

Schmelzle—335, 397, 401 
Schmoller, G.— 248 
Schulz, Arthur— 399 
Seignouret, £.—186 
Sering, M.— 239, 248, 266, 268, 
398 

Seufferheld, A.— 109 
Simon, Rodolphe — 261 
Sinell— 109 

Sismondi, Jean-Charles-Leonard 
Simond — 265 

Skvortsov, A. I.— 14 

Smith, Adam— 244 

Souchon, A.— 29, 31, 35, 41, 49, 
70, 81, 99, 170, 220 

Steklov, Y. M. (Nevzorov)— 64, 
65, 66, 67 

Stoeckhardt— 348-49 

Struve, P. B.—82 

Stumpfe, Emil— 41, 42, 49, 70, 
101, 231, 233, 237, 239, 240 
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 
247, 251, 268, 275, 397, 399 



T 

2a3b — see Lepeshinsky, P. N. 
Thiel, Hugo— 126, 138, 160, 226 

231, 399 
Tourdonnet — 258 
Turgot, R. J.— 278 
Turot, P.— 257 



V 

Vandervelde, E.—29, 32, 36 
Vikhlyaev, P. A.— 50, 65 



542 



NAME INDEX 



Vladimirov — see Chernov, V. M. 
Vogeley-Alsfeld, #.—397 
Vorontsov, V. P. (V. V.)— 42, 57, 

62, 66, 275 
V. V.— see Vorontsov, V. P. 



W 

Wagner, A.— 101 
Wakefield, E. G.— 85 
Weber, Max— 253 



Weisengriin — 108 
Werner— 398 
West— 47 

WoZ/f, /.— 348-49 
Wollny— 264 



Z 

Za/m, F.— 324-25, 327, 340, 341, 
352, 354, 355 



B. M. JIEHMH 
COHMHEHMJI 

TOM 40 



Ha amnuucKOM x3UKe